The Jekyll and Hyde Game of Iran – Part One of Three

Make NO mistake about it, Iran is the new threat and has been since the debacle of the elections last. Yes….make no mistake. Iran is more dangerous than China, Russia, Europe, and the United States. NOTE: More dangerous…not more powerful…YET!!! But that time is closing unless we, the United States, get off our collective ass and throw political correctness in the trash can and not give a rat’s ass what China or Russia or Europe thinks. The following is an opinion of D13 based upon his knowledge, research, and tactics….and it is what I would do in the place of A-jad.

Let us start with what has happened recently. The Tunisian Government has fallen to the Muslim Brotherhood, sponsored by Iran. Lebanon has fallen to the Hezbollah terrorists, sponsored by Iran, Egypt has fallen and the Muslim Brotherhood, sponsored by Iran, now has a level of control and representation. Iran is the largest sponsor of terrorists worldwide, according the 2009 United Nations report on terrorism. As usual, many western leaders see the fall of Egypt as a good thing but their vision is short sighted. They fail to see the strength of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood and some of them fail to see the broken political will of the United States that started with our President Obama and his lackeys in the House and Senate. BUT…..all of the Middle Eastern leaders see this even if we do not.

Even the government of Yemen is on very shaky ground being assaulted by the Muslim Brotherhood, sponsored by Iran. Has anybody been watching what is happening in Ethiopia and do you care? How many of you understand that Libya and Ethiopia are the KEY to unlocking the strategy of radical Islam. Radical Islam is on a collision course with the Western World. Some have theorized that what has happened in the first part of this year is a “tip of the iceberg”, to coin an often used phrase. Consider Libya and Egypt a preseason warm up.

Consider this. (1) Iran is about to get the nuclear bomb. If anybody believes that their intentions are peaceful are naïve at BEST. (2) It is the greatest terror sponsoring nation on this earth….bar NONE. (3) Iranian Leaders and a great many of their people believe in the 12th Imam (their version of the Messiah) and believe that he is about to return. The belief that this can be hastened by creating chaos is also firmly backed by that infamous novel…..the Koran (Quran) or the bible of Islam. You can create a hell of a lot of chaos with many terrorists and nuclear weapons. Never, in this modern age, has a powerful nation held such dangerous beliefs. If this is the course of Iran (and you will see that it is according to A-Jad), then, it is my opinion, that this makes Iran an even greater danger far removed from anything that we have faced before and that includes the cold war era.

Before we get to the 12th Imam and his return, let us look at geopolitics and tactics. In 1993, Islamic extremism started gaining tremendous ground in Egypt. So much so, that Egypt’s alliance with Israel became critical. Why? Because in an effort keep the peace (and power) it was necessary to ally with Israel to protect its northern border. An alliance with Israel guaranteed an alliance with the United States. Egypt has been repeatedly shaken by Iran and radical Islam in the past 15 years. Anwar Sadat, the president before Mubarak, was killed by the Muslim Brotherhood who is the strongest opponent of Mubarak and closely allied with Iran. And now, that radical and violent organization is about to have a powerful say and much more influence and control in Egyptian politics. The Muslim Brotherhood has been held silent for almost 30 years because of Mubarak and now that he is gone, Egypt’s close relationship with the United States is gone. The Hamas terrorist group of the Gaza strip is the Palestinian partner of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood could quite possibly get control of Egypt in the same way that Hamas did in Gaza.

Activists and political analysts in Egypt today are insisting that there is something sinister in the wind and Egypt is shifting. Egyptian political scientist Mustapha Kamel Al Sayyid predicts that protests will continue and “the reservoir of discontent is huge and that a revolution is coming.” The most vulnerable time in Egypt is that period before Mubarak leaves the scene completely while the American President humiliates Mubarak who has been a friend for 30 years. So, what does an Islamic Egypt mean?

Just look north to the Mediterranean, which has been a strategically quiet region for some time, to start exploding. You now have Egypt and Libya in turmoil. Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco all have Muslim Brotherhood cells operating within and all financed by Iran (this according to informed intelligence sources and the United Nations own report on terrorist organizations). Grab a map and find Egypt and go westward. Just look at the strategic importance that this would have on the Med. More important is that an Islamic Egypt would “give a dramatic impetus to radical Islam throughout the Arab world.” One of the major cogs of American AND European policy would be gone in a crucial part of the world. IF Egypt were to be transformed into an Islamist country it would be the single most significant event in the Islamic world. Egypt moving into the radical Islamic camp would be as catastrophic as an Iranian nuke……which is close at hand

President Mubarak resisted the radical Muslims in their violence towards Israel and other nations. He was a powerful ally in helping the US, Britain, and Israel in their war against terror and he was and is against Iran being a nuclear country. In terms of peace, Israel is going to lose its best friend in the ME. If you think that the Hamas and Hezbollah recent shelling is an old conflict renewed…..think again. It is all part of the Jekyll and Hide plan that Ajad is captaining. President Mubarak exerted the power he needed to control the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and lived through six assassination attempts. And the United States under Obama slapped him in the face, thereby, damaging our relations with the rest of the ME by showing no resolve and playing into Ajad’s hands. Obama is the laughing stock of the world and he drags the rest of us with him. Why? Because he, consequently you and I, now support the enemies of America and the moderate Arab states and humiliate those nations friendly to us. Allow me to give an example: Our government said nothing to support the millions of dissenters in 2009 when they marched against Iranian leaders who stole their election. We were silent and now the Iranian military has used its brutal tactics and has killed or imprisoned thousands since then. Then, on the other hand, we supported the dissenters of Egypt and humiliated Mubarak.

Let’s continue. Turkey, now a strong ally of Iran, is on the northern part of the Med. Look at the map that I asked you to review (Turkey is just North of Syria and Iraq). What happens if Egypt, Libya Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Turkey are all controlled by radical Islam sponsored by Iran. It is entirely possible. There are those who have said prove that Iran has attacked anybody in the last two hundred years. The proof is out there now and has been for the last 15 years. The Suez would be under Iranian control as would the southern edge of the Mediterranean from the Rock Of Gibraltar to Turkey and Syria.

Now, still looking at the map, look to the southeast and you see Ethiopia (It is where the word Djibouti is located, Djibouti is actually the tiny country that the line points to) that is having revolutionary problems with the….(ahem)….Muslim Brotherhood. Look across the narrowest part of the Gulf of Arden and you have Yemen, that is in unrest with…..(ahem)…. Muslim Brotherhood. The government of Eritrea (Very thin country north of Ethiopia and East of Sudan) is already aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. Keep going around the cast and all that is left is Oman, UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

Why is Iran interested? A simple glance at the map shows that those countries allied with Iran (should it go that way) would give Iran a measure of control over the most prolific trade route in the world…..especially with control of Ethiopia and Libya. Controlling the Suez canal is not enough. Egypt tried that back in 1956 and Britain. France, and Israel kicked it out in one punch. But what if that whole area was controlled by radical Islam, sponsored by Iran, suddenly you have jets, missiles, and even nuclear weaponry controlling the entire region. Radical Islam could interrupt the flow of oil to Europe and the United States….thereby crippling if not stopping any American war involvement.

Many will say that this is the result of American Imperialism or mercantilism and it is not even close to this. Persia was once the most powerful and ruthless empire the world had ever seen. It wants to be again and there is no better time than now. In part two, I will explain in full the 12th Imam concept and the dedication that Ajad and Iran have to it up to and including war, if necessary, to “prepare the way”.

Comments

If we drilled oil here, abd becaome self sufficient, the eco-fascist green movement would fail, which as you know, is a big liberal thing. The Al Goriean and the greeny weenies would chain themselves to anything and everything to hold onto their fantasies. I would also provide jobs, which is not in the best interests of the entitlement loving lefty’s who rely on the entitlement class for votes.

By the way, the purpose of the question the other day was to cause everyone to test their core values and to get some information relative to a theory of mine.

When it comes right down to it, is real estate more important than freedom and liberty?

I think what we saw is that for some people real estate is bigger. So the next question is why? I think that goes to our natural tribal instincts. We get used to a place. We fight to protect our home. Even when it becomes hopeless.

The other factor, I believe, is that our American heritage causes us to see the possibility of saving our home. So the two combined push us to stay and fight.

As for me, I am in the fight. But I would migrate if I could bring family along and if the other choice were truly free, and if the fight here trully looked hopeless.

The other part related to the question of Nation State. For all the same reasons I think that is why the Nation State will not become extinct. It is tied to our sense of place and identity. It has become part of our human nature.

Mornin JAC: You put into words what I couldn’t the other day when you asked me to explain the “why” of my loyalty. I was amazed to see who would flee with no problem. I would probably only flee if my life was at stake.

The greenies and their possie need to think ahead only a few short years (or less) to see if its worth not scaring the caribou away. The positives outweigh the negatives at this point. Besides..I drive a big SUV.. don’t feel like trading for a puddle jumper or a plug in…dont want to spend any more than the $80 it already takes to fill up…and how would I get
my doggies to the lake in a puddle jumper…CURSES!

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

“Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?”

“Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly.

“Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!”

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!”

“This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!”

“Alright then…how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog.

“Ahh…,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!”

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

“You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog’s back.

“I could not help myself. It is my nature.”

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Well done, I can’t wait to see the fur fly. I take it the LIAR IN CHIEF”S speech the other night burned you as much as me. Reports are finally leaking out that we have troops on the ground in Libya and they were already there when he spoke.

So with that, and what you have presented here one has to truly begin to wonder.

First on my wonder list is when will the Left Wing Politicos and their minions have to finally come forward and admit Glenn Beck was right. I have been hoping it was a lot of coincidence but my brain said otherwise.

I do have a question for you though. You have stated for sometime you agree with the “get the hell out of everyone’s business” approach and bring the troops home.

Yet the scenario you draw is hastened by our leaving the region to its own devices.

So do you still think we should pull back and reform according to the philosophy of George Washington or should we still be directly engaged in trying to stop the Caliphate.

One other. Do you think it is Ajad that is behind this or is he only the public voice we are allowed to hear?

And by the way, reports yesterday that Iranian leaders are now claiming the 12th Imam is here. Not coming anymore but already here.

Let’s stipulate that Iran is a huge threat, specifically to the United States (I do not claim to agree, I am merely stipulating in order to get to my next question without wasting a lot of time here).

The question is, where does the US get the resources to deal with Iran? Do we just print even more money out of thin air? If so, how does doing so affect us?

People seem to invade Afghanistan from time to time, and they end up wasting a LOT of resources and generally not having a whole lot of success. I imagine Iran would be even worse! When was the last time someone successfully invaded THAT place???

Good morning, Peter and I understand the stipulation. As to Afghanistan, no one has successfully invaded and won it. Unless it happened 1000 years ago. We will not win it, the Russians did not win it….We, the US, seem to not learn lessons on wars of containment.

We, the US, do not have the resources to continue our course. I did not and have not advocated invasion of Iran. However, I feel that war is inevitable over there and I mean a large war. We do not print money for this. As I stated to JAC, I think we need a dramatic change in our energy policy. By doing that, how important, in this day of technology and logistics, is that part of the world? Corporate investment? Sure, there is a tremendous amount of investment in that part of the world because of our dependence on oil. We have enough reserves and untapped resources over here and in our waters. We know where it is. We need to change our energy policy and render that part of the world to MINOR status and let that part of the world handle it. The only other issue that we need to make, is Iranian Nuclear policy. It is not peaceful and never had the intention of being peaceful.

I fear that we do not have the political cast iron “cajones” to stand up to this domestically. But, I guess the question is, do we backour so called allies? The French and Europe and Britain are having cows over what is happening in Libya. The United States did not put together any coalition…the French did and we joined later (although Obama is taking credit for the coalition). They have so much more to lose than us…if our energy policy is changed. But, I also see a nationalization of the oil industry in that part of the world in the future. Then what? How powerful is our corporate interests on Washington if that is to start happening. Nobody liked Ko-da-foo foo in Libya but he did keep a lid on things. So, long answer to your question but it was a fair question.

I personally suspect that there is still too much resistance, especially with the current President and the current Senate, for there to be any meaningful change (at least in a positive direction) to our energy policies for at least the next 2 years. After that, MAYBE, but certainly no guarantees.

I strongly suspect we will “allow” Israeal to fight the war with Iran, and will only intervene if we see that not working very well. Merely speculation on my part, but certainly a possibility. If we do it that way, we at least give the appearance of “staying out of other people’s business”, but the drawback is that it could unite many of the Arab countries against Israel (even though Iran is not Arab), and cause a REALLY unpleasant, messy war in the region in which we might HAVE to get involved, but at that point our involvement might cause China and/or Russia to become involved as well, and then we could have a REAL mess on our hands.

IMO, it is a giant hornets’ nest. The US would probably prefer to see the current “regime” in Iran overthrown from within, in the hopes that that would somehow “solve” the problem.

I believe that, for many of the reasons outlined above, we won’t see anything at all happen regarding war with Iran unless they do something to push either us or Israel into it.

We shall see, but the way I look at it, kicking the hornets’ nest is usually a bad idea (for many reasons).

Yep…why kick the hornet’s nest. As to Israel, I do not think that Iran will do anything other than support their surrogates. For Iran to actually attack Israel would not be in their interest….the surrogate war is better press.

To your questions:
JAC asks: “Yet the scenario you draw is hastened by our leaving the region to its own devices.

So do you still think we should pull back and reform according to the philosophy of George Washington or should we still be directly engaged in trying to stop the Caliphate.

D13 responds: ” Good question but before that one is answered, there is a determination to make. National Interest. Is it within our national interest to leave the region and let it go its own way. If our national interest is oil and that is all that region is…then I say we change our energy policy and start poking holes in our own ground and in our own waters and leave the region. Let Russia and China and Europe handle it. Then I am for pulling out, bring our boys home and watch the fireworks. If it is determined that our national interest lies in that part of the world, then that raises a whole different prospect. Why are we in Libya? Because of 5% imports? Bullshit. If control of the Gulf if Arden and the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal is determined to be in our national interest, then we defend and fight for it no matter what. But, I surmise, that Europe and Britain and even Russia needs that region for their survival.

JAC asks: “Do you think it is Ajad that is behind this or is he only the public voice we are allowed to hear?

D13 says: ” Ajad is the catalyst and he is a far worse ego maniac that Obama. (IF that were possible). He has religion as a motivator. It has been long noted that the Ayatollahs are not in real power anymore. Ajad has the military and he used it big time and the last couple years on his own people and is still doing this. He pictures himself as the SOLE catalyst for the return of the 12th Imam. Whether or not the “12th Imam” is supposedly here, I do not know. BUT it matters not. The return and implementation of the 12th Imam can be hastened by turmoil and unrest and even war, which Ajad has said in public court before and he pictures himself in that role. He is Shia and that is the radical Islamic side.

One thing to remember. Israel is not the thorn in Iran’s side. It also is a catalyst to keep things stirred up. IF Israel did not exist in that part of the world, the same rhetoric will be forthcoming. But, do not take my word for it…just watch what is unfolding and go back to my post a year ago warning of this. It is coming true. However, it is important to revisit the history of the Persian Empire. You will then have a great blue print of the future.

Not lumping you with Beck. Just noting for our resident friends that he has been talking about this for a year or more, and they declared him a fear mongering Islamophobe.

In case you forgot, I have commenting on what I saw as a desire to use Islam to restore the Caliphate with the old Persian Empire at its core. And I have never thought Israel had anything to do with Iran’s ambitions, or Iraq’s for that matter (ala Sadam Hussein). It is simply a motivational point to keep the tribes focused on A target.

Now to the real crux for us. I have a problem with this thing called NATIONAL INTEREST. Seems far to subjective and prone to manipulation. Like its use as justification for bombing Libya. What CRAP!!!

That is why I have stood firm on the concept of defend against ATTACK. I do recognize that attack can come in many forms. But disrupting our oil supply from other countries or international shipping lines is not what I would consider an attack.

If we as a Democratic Republic are going to use National Interest as our criteria then I would sure love to here a public debate about exactly what the hell that is.

Agreed. National Interest is a catch all phrase. ” It is in our National Interest to blah blah blah”.

However, let me correct something here. As you said, attack can come from anywhere. But do not use the word attack to just mean war. Closing off shipping lanes is economic attack. BF is on target with the economy. But it is a weapon to be used against anyone. Economics is as powerful as any nuke. That is the crux of BF’s point. It can bring a country to its knees as fast or faster than any army. I know that you understand this…but quite a few do not understand the real power of economics. And that is part of the Iran end game which is in part three. They cannot beat us physically with weaponry….but a pwerful weapon in there arsenal is………………………………money.

Yes I do understand there are other means and hence my comment about slippery slope.

If the shipping lanes of the Suez are cut off WE have other options. More costly but they exist. But a broad analysis would show added shipping cost much less than “engagement” and “entanglement” (depending of course).

But then comes the slope. What happens when the next lane is attacked or cut off? Or another economic line? Where does it stop and what the cost then?

These are all the questions we have struggled with since WWII. It is where our moral principles collide with those of others with differing principles.

A public debate is needed. Thanks to the LIAR IN CHIEF and his Minions we are always arguing about the wrong things.

Hey JAC – bouncing in/out – my daily life is being dominated by meetings right now…..

“National Interest” – so I do get the whole globalization thingy – but the NI term seems way to easy to shape shift on definition that we lose all consistency and credibility – this is where relativism gets in big big trouble.

Hope all is well with you sir.

We should collaborate some time on some articles about which pieces/parts of the Federal Gov should be outright eliminated/significantly reduced.

Could be fun

We almost started on Nat Parks or Fish and Game before if I remember right.

HI Ray…good luck onyour endeavors, my friend…. I hope that I am conveying that using the term “National Interest” is a convenient catch all. I do not support this National Interest crap as fundamental.

Colonel, Good article. I would ask a question though. If this knowledge is known, then why would the U.S, Britain and France join in to help this plan succeed? I would think that the last thing we/they would want is for Iran to succeed in this endeavor. I’m also thinking that Saudi is going to see the same problems as Egypt and the other countries. What say you, Sir?

Mr. D13 – I will have to lock horns with you on this one sir. For a soldier claiming insight from “intelligence” your article seems to lack………intelligence. (Sorry, Mr. USW seems to like “blunt” here I guess)

Is Iran bad? Yessir it sure as hell as is. You should take greater care when assuming your authority position and passing off things that are either marginally true or not true at all.

(1) I would have thought you knew the ongoing work at Dimona in the Negev is way past the 2nd or 3rd generation of Stuxnet. I would have thought you would also know that there will be many more Dr. Ali Mohammadi-type tactical missions led by elements of the Mossad and the Duvdevan. A-Jad knows he or they will not have a nuclear bomb anytime in the near future.

(2) The Muslim Brotherhood DID NOT kill Sadat. The attack was carried out by Tanzim al-Jihad, which splintered after the attack – they have all been absorbed into other groups long past – and mostly (as you should have known) because they cannot get their shit together and they do not agree on much.

(3) The MB is NOT ruling Tunisia – Essebi is as liberal as they come. I’ll get worried when I can no longer buy wine there.

(4) President Obama and his administration DID speak out during the Iranian uprising. You should know this. It was in the news. And you can still search it on Bing or Google.

(5) Ethiopia? You already knew that Wahhabism has a very small footprint in Ethiopian society didn’t you? Shame.

I could go on but this is really silly and playing into the Glen Beck worshippers that seem to congregate here.

We need to continue to support and fund the covert activity that has been successful. And we need to enhance our own energy sources.

Hi Red…back for a bit. I did not bring my notes with me on Sadat but you are wrong and you are right. But first things first…I do not care about blunt. You will not hurt my feelings at all. So go for it.

Your number one: Stop with the Mossad and the worm crap. I am not even talking Israel here. ISrael does not play into this at all other than a catalyst to keep the Arabs pissed.

Your number two: You are partially correct and you are partially wrong. Even though, the Tanzim al-Jihad group was complicit in the attack (and successful), was indeed a Islamic militant group aligned with and financed by the Islamic Brotherhood (aka. The Society of Muslim Brothers founded back in the 20’s, if memory serves correctly). It was indeed a splinter group (as the others have been also) but was financed specifically for the assasination and then sold out by the Society for public reasons and world wide condemnation. This group (Tanzim al-Jihad ) has now joined forces with Al Quaeda in 2001, I think. Al Quaeda is closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and also receives funding surrepticiously. So, to absolutely call it correctly, Tanzim al-Jihad , did the assasination with the funding and guidance of the “Society”.

YOur Item number 3: I do not believe that I said Tunisia was ruled by the Brotherhood (I will go back and check to make sure I did not impy that ) I believe that I stated that Tunisia has Brotherhood cells operating that that country creating a hell of a problem. I also stated that IF Tunisia falls to Islamic radicalism what the problem would be. (Will agree with you on one thing, however…..great wine there.)

Your item number four: I can’t believeyou took the political silence to mean not talking…..let me explain. He paid minimal lip service to it. Iran did the same thing to its people that Libya did….and there was no coalition and no humanitarian bombings and rightly so…..It was an Iranian issue….it is a libyan issue but for some reason humanitarian issues in Libya out weighs that of Iran. Interesting, dont you think?

YOur item number 5: Shame?? Ethiopia is another country that could use all the humainatrian aid possible but…none. Small footprints turn into larger ones. Put Ethiopia in the tactical scale. Remember, the article is a tactical one and a what if….the what if is on the horizon and is looming. And, look at Ethiopia as the dam with the small leak. YOu better plug it…small guy or not.

Covert…no. Stay out. We have our own problems. Once again, do not read the article as saying we attack anybody….just pointing out what is not being mentioned on a National scale nor in the MSM. And, playing Devil’s advocate.

Enchance our energy policy….you betcha….drill baby drill. Let’s be self sufficient and keep our money here. Not send two billion to South America on a promise that we will be the first customer? Bull shit.

And,finally sir……..you will notice that I am NOT nor ever have been a Glenn Beck person, Do not even watch him and will not. I am also not using my position and authority to promote anything….that would be illegal. This is my assessment…much like that of BF and his economic assessment….my assessment and my warning of a year ago.

Mr. D13 – I have to march to therapy on the shoulder shortly so I have only a moment.

I think you said “”The Tunisian Government has fallen to the Muslim Brotherhood, sponsored by Iran””

I’ll back off if there is some hidden meaning behind that.

The station chiefs I worked with in that region took a different view of Tanzim than what you’re stating here. They were very short lived and thus any “funding” from the brotherhood was either bs or unneeded anyway given what they would have needed funding for. True they were called out by competing factions – but that was only because they didnt want the hammer hitting their heads.

It does look a little sinsiter doesn’t it. I meant to use that phrase like a “headline” issue and it indeed had a different meaning. I am new at writing articles…..I explained it further down what the actual happening is in Tunisia….I digress on the appearance of it in that statement.

Do not confuse people with the ability to think critically and analyze things from a different point of view than your own to be “Glen Beck worshippers”. I listen to/watch Beck on RARE occasions. Sometimes he makes sense, sometimes he doesn’t, but whatever the case, he is a mere human and not worthy of any sort of worship, even if he were right 100% of the time (which he isn’t).

You will find that quite a few of the people you THINK are “Glen Beck worshippers” on this site actually agree with you on quite a few things when it comes to a topic like Iran.

For example, I COMPLETELY agree with you that we need to enhance our own energy sources, although you and I would probably differ significantly on how we might accomplish that goal. That’s ok (for now), at least we agree on the goal, right?

Don’t be too hasty in your judgements. We don’t encourage anyone to worship anyone else, or anything for that matter. What we are trying to encourage is critical thinking.

I guarantee you you will be challenged here, in more ways than one. I would encourage you, if you have the time, to go back through the archives and examine a lot of the things we have been through here in the past 2 years, it will be a rather large time-investment, but I think you will find it enlightening.

I wish the search function in here was better. So I do apologize if I repeat something that was beat to death by this group months or years ago. Its just a pain to try and find all the historical goodies you all put time and effort into.

Colonel, I just didn’t have the time to go through the entire post but am I getting the gist of it right when you “seem” to imply we need to take out Iran militarily?

I’m dropping in and out from my red lair today (have to finish writing these books before unemployment runs out and I’m forced to rob some rich guy flashing his rolex at the bull & bear) … although even Rolex isn’t worth what it used to be on the black market …:)

about those fishesisis … having had a few experiences “back in the day” with the old Fulton Fish Market … what we used to do is make sure certain trucks and their drivers were treated fairly by the guys selling the fisheisis … and once in a while they’d ask, “Wanna fish?”

“Sure,” I’d say (if I was in the mood). Then I’d reach for my wallet and they’d say, “Don’t be crazy. Here, take it.”

The belief that this can be hastened by creating chaos is also firmly backed by that infamous novel…..the Koran (Quran) I must have forgotten that section when I read it. Admittedly, like all ancient holy books, it rambles and becomes somewhat obtuse in places, so it’s entirely possible I didn’t catch it. Can you give me a surah reference?

Never, in this modern age, has a powerful nation held such dangerous beliefs Hogwash. We hold much crazier notions. We believe we have a right, or a duty even, to dictate to the rest of the world. We believe we have a right or duty to spread western beliefs by force. We believe we have the right to impose our will on the entire planet, as if we are the only country whose opinion matters.

And, by the way, when do you define the “modern age”? Because I seem to recall a short guy with a silly mustache leading a country which believed it had a right to commit organized and deliberate (German efficiency…) mass murder of “undesirables.”

Let’s see, what else, the USSR was a big fan of mass murder too, and they believed in Communism – you can’t get much more dangerous than that. Except that they also believed in spreading communism, so they did manage to be even more dangerous.

I could go on, but it’s pointless.

Iranian Leaders and a great many of their people believe in the 12th Imam (their version of the Messiah) and believe that he is about to return We Jews are still waiting for the first messiah (we’re not holding our breath). However, 79% of Christians think the 2nd coming will happen, and 20% think it will happen during their lifetimes. I forget, what’s 20% of 2.1 Billion? Source.

Activists and political analysts in Egypt today are insisting that there is something sinister in the wind and Egypt is shifting. Objection. Hearsay.

Djibouti is actually the tiny country that the line points to You know what the capital of Djibouti is? Djibouti! Mind like a steel trap.

Radical Islam could interrupt the flow of oil to Europe and the United States….thereby crippling if not stopping any American war involvement. Interrupting US access to oil is the surest way there is to trigger US military action short of bombing Pearl Harbor.

Many will say that this is the result of American Imperialism or mercantilism […] This is the result of American imperialism and mercantilism.

Persia was once the most powerful and ruthless empire the world had ever seen. It wants to be again […]PersiaFranceRomeBrittanGreeceAustria-HungaryThe USSRJapanPortugalSpainChina The US was once is the most powerful and ruthless empire the world had has ever seen. It wants to be again keep things that way. What’s your point?

I will start with your last. The USA IS the most powerful Nation ever to arise so far.

It is not the most RUTHLESS, not even close. If it were the wars in Irag and Afghanistan would have ended in 12 months and if we were a TRUE IMPERIALIST nation we would be emigrating US Citizens to inhabit and totally control those countries.

The USA does have certain IMPERIALISTIC traits and they have been strong at times.

So I was wondering if you happen to remember who started this “imperialistic” notion and what his/her political philosophy was called? Political party perhaps?

We’re ruthless when we’re so inclined. You know, I’m getting senile in my old age.. can you remind me which countries have dropped atomic bombs on their enemies? I’m sure it must be a long list, but for some reason I can only come up with one name…

The utter willingness to nuke innocent people Twice, burn hundreds of thousands of innocent German civilians in fire storms, starve 1.5 million Germans in concentration camps post-war, flatten Vietnam with more munitions then the entire WW2, so on so on…

Americans have no mirror to face themselves, thus, they can not see the evil.

I am repeatedly amazed by the total lack of historical perspective. I am somehow sure that both the United States and Britain would merrily have foregone the joy of bombing the crap out of the Germans and Japanese had those two nations not started the whole damned thing! Sheesh.

Your question was who started American Imperialism and what was his/her political orientation?

It started before there even was a “United States.” I would go back well before the Louisiana Purchase, as Flag Stated. I would say it started with Manifest Destiny. The term itself showed up in the mid 1800’s, but the idea itself dates back to the very first Europeans to settle in the New World – remember, the natives didn’t choose to move onto reservations.

OK, so let’s say it started in 1776. We were pushing West into injun territory, stealing land, enslaving natives, raping, murdering, and pillaging. We were in full-on imperial expansionism mode.

I say again: you think the natives chose to move onto reservations?

But I agree that buying land is not imperial, though I would suggest that France didn’t really own the land – they just had a claim that we recognized. The land was owned by the indians who lived in 99% of the area, and we just stole it from them and kicked them out.

You qouted D13 in saying: “Persia was once the most powerful and ruthless empire the world had ever seen. It wants to be again”

D13 says: Keep it in context, please. You know I was writing about historical….

Matt states: Interrupting US access to oil is the surest way there is to trigger US military action short of bombing Pearl Harbor.

D13: Matt, my friend…….remember that the article was written from a TACTICAL point of view. I would immediately interrupt the flow of oil…right now. Under this leadership….there will be no attack AND give me two years and an election cycle in the US to consolidate my position….there will be no attack.

I do not know what Europe would do….they would have no choice in my opinion.

Mathius quoted D13 in saying: “Persia was once the most powerful and ruthless empire the world had ever seen. It wants to be again”

D13 says: Keep it in context, please. You know I was writing about historical….

Mathius responds: Yes. But the world is full of countries which were once powerful and ruthless. It happens to be our turn right now, but I promise you the wheel will keep on turning – it will be someone else’s sooner or later. All countries which had a former glorious past want to return to that former glory – France still thinks of itself as a world leader rather than a strutting peacock.

That Persia was once powerful and desires to be so again should surprise no one. In fact, I would only consider it surprising if they did not wish to be powerful once again. (Ruthlessness comes along with power – power allows you to get away with being ruthless, and you choose to be ruthless to maintain your power – a vicious cycle).

So you opted only to look at one isolated example of historical context, I’m looking at a far broader scope.

America’s lifeblood, it’s food if you will, is oil. Cut off the supply and we will do whatever – literally anything – to security our supply. If someone cut off your access to food, would you not kill for it?

Instant replay: No foul….. Who will call the shots? I really do not think that WE will, as Nation, individually will do nothing without Europe and Russia being involved. It woudld have to be a world war….and massive.BUT….your point is well taken.

Can’t we please do something other than drill? How ’bout solar solar solar or wind wind wind or hydro hydro hydro? Even nuclear nuclear nuclear. Still drill baby drill is better than coal baby coal. But really, I can get behind any solution that doesn’t involve sending my money to these clowns.

I bet it’d be shocking just how fact the middle east got their asses back in line if the world stopped sending them buckets of money for the oil they just so happen to be sitting on.

Mathius- I could go for those solutions as well. It just would seem, with our economy in the state it is now, that we should drill, drill drill 1st, as most of the infrastructure is in place there already. That and the fact of because of our governments tendency to over-regulate, the other options are kinda cost prohibitive still for them to work on a national scale(besides the nuclear).

Any appearance of alignment is merely a matter of short term convenience.

Iran has no capacity to extend any geopolitical force outside her own borders. To see a “threat” from a nation whose entire navy is smaller than the Seattle Yacht club, whose air force is essentially grounded due to lack of parts.

The real threat: the evil American Empire

Iran is completely surrounded by the American Empire occupying Iran’s direct neighbors of Iraq and Afghanistan, and two (maybe three) fleets sitting on her Southern Shores.

He is “retraining” my arm to move so a muscle has to pull the joint a bit forward to move within socket to get over the bone displacement damage – but when it does, I get 95% range of motion back. Hurts like hell for a microsecond when it does, but that is due to tendons moving in ways that it hasn’t moved for over 50 years 🙂 … a “learning” process that in time will fade away he says.

But it was quite remarkable. Before I couldn’t reach and touch my face, and now i can actually scratch the back of my ear! Night and day difference.

[On screen headline: “Target: Libya, What Would Bachmann Do Differently?”]

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, MINNESOTA-R: Good morning, Matt.

LAUER: I want to take you back to March 17th. It was a Thursday, it was the day that Moammar Khaddafy told the people of Libya and Benghazi that his troops were on the way, they would show no mercy and they would find them in their closets. If you had been President of the United States on that day what would you have done specifically?

BACHMANN: Well I don’t think at that point that we had seen the threat to the United States either from Khaddafy or have we seen a vital American national interest at risk. That really needs to be our first line of defense. Because unfortunately there are atrocities that do happen in different countries in the world. We just saw this weekend slaughter in Syria. So based upon that criteria humanitarian intervention, which apparently is the new Obama Doctrine-

LAUER: Right.

BACHMANN: That would be the basis for the United States to enter into one country after another. I don’t think that’s in the American interest-

LAUER: So-

BACHMANN: -for us to enter into one country after another.

LAUER: Going back to my question though, had you been President on that day, March 17th, what would you have done? Would you have done nothing?

BACHMANN: I would not have gone in.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

LAUER: So would you have called the other leaders of NATO countries and said, “We support you, but we’re not coming?”

BACHMANN: Well I think that what, what presidents do is they stay involved and they, they try to get their, the very best intelligence that they can. Because I think, one thing the American people need to know is that we did not know, nor did the intelligence community know who the opposition is. If we are going in – because, remember, there were, there was just testimony yesterday that there are flickers of al Qaeda. We don’t know how much al Qaeda is involved in the opposition forces. Why would we want to strengthen al Qaeda’s hand in North Africa? That certainly wouldn’t be in the interests of the United States.

LAUER: Well, well let me, let me flip that coin on, on its, on its other side. If there are flickers, as you say, of al Qaeda among the rebels, would it not be a sign to them or showing them that the United States has compassion and we are willing to use our military might to help all people?

BACHMANN: Compassion for al Qaeda?

LAUER: No, compassion for civilians in, in Benghazi.

LAUER: Well of course we have compassion for people. That is not the point. There is no more compassionate nation in the world than the United States of America. We are the ones that offer the humanitarian aide. But in this instance, under the Obama Doctrine, the President of the United States is using the United States military for the purpose of humanitarian aide. This is a marked difference from the way that the United States military has been used before. The Obama Doctrine is very, very different from any interventions that we have done in the past.

LAUER: Alright, let me ask you one more question, again, placing you in the White House. If you are the President of the United States, given what you know now, what’s taking place on the ground in Libya, would you make a decision to arm the rebels?

BACHMANN: I would not. Because, again, we do not know enough about who they are. And we also have not identified it an American vital international interest. That must be done before the United States can intervene in another nation’s affairs.

How can they obey such an order? I’m not a soldier, but TC (was it TC?) was telling me that soldiers are highly trained to recognize illegal orders, yet US military history is filled with similar examples. I’m not trying to be hostile to the military, I’m just trying to understand..

Understand ond do not take your question as hostility at all. What you need to understand, as NF pointed out some months ago, we are trained on what an illegal order is/was/or has been. When the President of the United States orders the destruction of Japanesecities…who is going to define what was illegal about it? When you bomb a muitions factory as a military target…we all know that civilians are in there. They become part of the war machine even if they are forced labor. That is not an illegal order by definition. A firestorm as a result of bombing.

There have been plenty of times when an officer has refused an illegal order. Me, for example, declined to carry out an order in battle because I was there to see what was happening that the rear echelon could not see….but we have that choice at the time. An example of an illegal order. “Sgt,take that prisoner outside and shoot him”. Intentionally bombing a school that has no military value would be an illegal order. Ordering the slaughter of a village or town that has no strategic or military value for the sake of “sending a message”.

NOw…let me extrapolate. If the enemy hides in a church or Mosque and holds civilians as human shields…then that is a legal military target. Puting AAA in hospitals and schools….is a military target and legal to hit.

So, illegal is defined. Well, defined. In addition, if you are given a target, it is assumed that it is strategic in value.

With respect, “round up all the Japanese and put them in that camp over there” is not questionable.

The bombing of Dresden got the factories.. and 15 square miles surrounding the factories.. that’s not collateral damage. That is, exactly as you put it: “sending a message.” It was one of the most beautiful cities in the world, a point of German pride, and a capital of a state and we Made An Example Of It. The people flying the planes had to – HAD TO – know what was happening, but they dropped their munitions anyway.

I’m not a soldier but do you understand the emotions of fear, anger, hate, self preservation, them or us, fighting to protect your loved ones, your country. The mindset isn’t that hard to understand. Being there would make it much clearer, much easier to understand. Having to send your babies to possibly die or maybe just be permanently haunted by the mental pictures of what they saw and had to do to survive. Sitting at home waiting to hear whether or not your child died that day-or being that child and seeing the horror and death everyday. The only surprise is that there isn’t more items to add to your list.

V, there are more items to add to my list. Many, many, many more. I bet D13 could list more than I could, and I can think of dozens off the top of my head.

But fear and hate and anger do not justify evil action. These things are not examples of self-preservation, they are examples or rage and revenge, of power-drunk leaders ordering wholesale destruction and punishment against innocents in order to appease a cowardly electorate and appease their sense of righteous indignation.

The soldiers where under no delusion that all the people they rounded up for the camps were enemy spies, nor is it possible that they believed that the buildings they were destroying were all legitimate targets. They acted with reckless abandon, destroying the lives of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

And here’s the rub. I think that 99.999% of soldiers are good, decent people who only want to protect this country, uphold and obey the law, and do the right thing. They are good and honorable. So, no, I don’t get how this happens.

In WW2, they were fighting a total war. Germany bombed civilians, sank passenger liners, the allies replied in kind. We are now trying limited warfare, and that may be doomed to failure. Not saying it is what we should do, just recognizing we have not made them renounce war or violence as a legitimate means of achieving their desires.

And I think the mindset in WW2 was that we either killed all of them until they surrendered, or they would kill all of us and our families. A fight to the death.

Churchill bombed Berlin FIRST. German air attacks were exclusively focused on factories and air fields and military installations.

England was defeated unless they could distract the German air force. Churchill calculated that if he began attacking civilian targets, Hitler would do the same – thus, move the assault away from the air fields and onto the people and the cities.

My evil, mentally deranged, sick cousin’s idea worked.

Germans sank the Lusitania as it was transporting munitions, and weapons under the cover of neutrality (using a neutral ship in this manner is actually an act of war).

“Raids on airfields continued through 24 August, and Portsmouth was hit by a major attack. That night, several areas of London were bombed; the East End was set ablaze and bombs landed on central London.”

“In retaliation, the RAF bombed Berlin on the night of 25–26 August, and continued bombing raids on Berlin.”

War is hell-I wonder why it surprises people-that we put people into situations that no human should have to endure and we are surprised that some do evil in our eyes and others do amazing acts of bravery. All I know is we are dealing with humans and emotions under horrible conditions-so I understand why some soldiers would follow orders and others would have refused.

I look at the bombing of Japan in horror-the reasoning as I understand anyway(I could be wrong but it’s what I remember) was that the war simply wasn’t gonna end. So they did some of that killing one to same a 1000 mathematics and decided that less people would die by bombing Japan than would die if the war continued. Evil was done-I don’t agree with their reasoning but I understand the reasoning. Am I making any sense.

The Allies “unconditional surrender” doctrine was instituted as a means to continue the war and alter the global alignment of the center of power.

Japan’s only condition was the “immutable position of the Emperor” – which was refused.

After two nukes, the Aliies demand surrender and the Japanese still insisted on the same condition that they presented since 1943 and finally, MacArthur realized that the entire nation would have to be wiped out to the last man unless the Allies agreed – which he convinced Truman to accept. Japan surrendered after that.

You confuse me Mathius-you can see the justification of bombing Hiroshima(even if you don’t believe they should have)-but you question whether our soldiers have just lost their minds-when they follow orders which kill or imprison innocents. You draw lines of distinction that I just don’t understand. 🙂

It’s entire purpose is:
(1) destroy individualism
(2) create a sense of urgency of all action
(3) obey orders without question
..and the most important because it is the most difficult,
(4) kill another human being unconsciously.

The military actually attempts to weed out brain-damaged people who naturally love to kill and torture other people. They are uncontrollable.

They want decent, innocent people – who they turn into their designs of a killing machine – under their control.

Of course, the process often turns decent, innocent human beings into expressions of utter and total evil.

Did the mothers of the boys in Styker Company raise them to slaughter innocent people for fun and sport?

Were those men mentally deranged before the Army?

Where did the sickness infect them? It wasn’t there mother, their school, their father, their friends, their church….

…it was the Army that infected them, and the environment festered the infection to the fullest manifestations of evil.

I will try to answer better later…. But your explanation here is absolute hogwash BF. Basic training is meant to cause the surrender of individuality so that you learn to become part of the machine. However, it is not, and never has been, meant to cause people to lose their minds and become numb to killing innocent people.

Flagster, I will respectfully disagree with you on this one. As anUSAF Combat Arms instructor for twelve years, I can, from experience say that what I taught was not anywhere close to what you claim. I taught people to kill other people in a combat situation. i also joined in the endeavor many times. Myself and those in my job, taught every aspect of safety and personnal decisions, including choosing to pull the trigger at another person. Certain absolutes always had to be verified before using deadly force, and they were stricktly maintained. I have personnally

You sir are incorrect. There were civilian members of the Japanese government that never wanted war and desired to end it but they could not. The government was controlled by the Supreme War Council and the Emperor supported the war until June of 1945. Until Hideki Tojo government fell in July of 1944 no one could even secretly much less openly discuss surrender. Tojo’s successor Kuniaki Koiso wanted a truce and secretly approached China’s Chiang Kai-shek to be his go between but his government fell before any headway was made. Koiso’s successor Kantaro Suzuki appointed a career diplomat as a foreign minister to negotiate with Stalin to find an end to the war but Stalin wanted no end as he was about to attack Japan and conquer more territory for Russia. Even when the Emperor called the Supreme War Council to the palace on June 22, 1945 to inquire on the progress of the war he could not and did not discuss surrender openly but he did suggest that diplomatic feelers be put out. From July forward he did fully support the civilian efforts to end the war but the Supreme War Council still opposed ending the war without one last final battle on the Home Islands. Even after the dropping of the bombs on Japan and with the Emperor commanding capitulation, die hard members of the War Council and military tried to kidnap him and show him the error of his ways. Even with all the devastation there were still those that could not or would not accept surrender.

Sorry, wrong button got pushed. Continuing, I have personnally had the crosshairs of high powered rifles on numerous people, the ultimate decision was mine to make. In each occassion, the correct decision was made, based on the absolutes of the use of deadly force.

Maybe the USAF is different than the other services, but that’s how we did business.

MAtt…you are going to have to seperate some items. First, I do not know very many people at all that agreed with the internment of Japanese in the US. I do agree with the internment in Hawaii because there were spies everywhere and they had to be ferreted out.

Yes…the pilots knew they were bombing cities and citizens were going to be killed. We know that going into ANY war. The innocent die. Fact of life but that does not make the bombing illegal. Keep it in perspective. I understand your position but you must understand the mindset of war.

You use Dresden….there were other cities far worse than that. Firestorming was a weapon. Harsh…brutal,,,final. As harsh and brutal as it was…it probably saved more lives than were lost. Who knows. Neither you nor BF nor I can say yea or nay.

BF’s description of basic training is not correct. But it is his opinion. I do not think that you can fathom what war is like and the fighting of them. It is terrible and innocents die. We do not say,,” look a civilian…kill him”. no one is taught to react that way….No one at all and I am Special Forces. I was not taught that.

But I understand war. HOw come no one says anything about the leaflets that were dropped before each bombing? Funny how that is missed. We actually warned cities before we bombed.

We will have to have a hefty debate someday on this….it would be interesting. I can show where leaflets were dropped on the following cities in Germany prior to the bombings:
Berlin, Dresden, Cologne, Stuttgart, Hamburg, Dusseldorf, Essen, Manheim, Bremen, Dortmund, and Hanover. There is alos another list available and the copy of the leaflets.

Now, where I will agree with you on Dresden, for example, is that the civilian populaion was targeted and done on purpose. It was targeted because despite what rhetoric you wish to put out, it was a majpr railroad crossroads and an industrial complex. The Dresden files will show that the industries were located in specific areas scattered out, obviously, to avoid easy bombings. The plan was ratified to use “firestorm” as an effecgtive weapon to “utterly destroy” the industrial complex and railroad yards and its capacity to rebuild. 1,200,000 leaflets were dropped on Dresden at the loss of 14 aircraft.

As a matter of record, there were over 600,000 civilians killed in the bombings (mostly by the RAF) over Germany.

Perhaps we can have a great debate on open mic someday on your assessment that the United States was responsible for WWII on both the Germans and the Japanese and who was more …ummmm….ruthless, I guess is the proper word.

NOw, are there things that I wish we never did. Yes sir. Anyone who has been eye bell to eye ball with the perceived “enemy” at the time that says he likes everything done in war is not telling the truth. I hated it….hated it in Vietnam, hated it in Kuwait, hated it in Bosnia, and hated it in Afghanistan.

That person with “stars and bars” is following orders too, of the civilian leadership. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a political decision – as was imprisoning Japanese in internment camps, as was the bombing of Dresden, as was the first bombing of Berlin, as was ad nasuem…….

Politicians set the rules of what is or isn’t legal and the military follows that general set of instructions.

Individual acts of unlawful killing and destruction occur most assuredly and those outside the established rules are punished – or the attempt is made to punish them.

Great question tho…..and it IS a great question. Where BF is partially correct, the enlisted is taught to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them. It is widely thought that the officers are the “gentleman”, which is a throw back to the old Colonial days. I will readily admit that our Army did not affect change in this type of thinking until AFTER the Vietnam War.

ANY…and I repeat….ANY soldier can decide not to carry out what he considers an illegal order and they are taught, at great length and allowed discussion at great length, what defines an illegal order. ( Example: Even in Vietnam, the Mormon religion did not allow, the taking of life even in war. A little known fact…..21st TAC (Tactical Air Command) stationed out of Cam Rahn Bay was comprised of 34% Mormon pilots that flew the Oscar Duece or the O2..(Cessna Sky Master) These were FAC’s (Forward Air Controllers) that marked targets with smoke rockets for the bigger badder fly fly boys to zoom in on or for us ” snake eater” types to call in artillery on. They were allowed to exercise their belief that war is immoral and they cannot “kill” but still marked targets to be killed.) NOt a great example but an ecample none the less.

One thing that I might point out. Generals who do not follow orders….get fired. Presidents have fired Generals for eons. We are still taught, and it is pounded into us, that we have no authority to go on our own as military and disobey the orders of the civilian authority appointed over us….unless it is an illegal or immoral order…and that is not usually subjective. It appears that you think it should be a subjective interpretation.

Matt, please put yourself in my father’s place. You are 24 and thrust into a war you didn’t ask for, newly married and shipped off to Europe with absolutely no clue when you will get home again. You are not stupid. You want that war to end yesterday, you will do everything within your power to make sure that happens. Dad was 8th AF ground crew but
if they needed him to fly to end that thing a day sooner, he would have jumped at it. To sit back 70 years later and armchair quarterback is insane. Beyond that it is an absolute insult to those who fought.

Regarding the Japanese desire to surrender after Midway. That is total speculative bullcrap. Yes, and be willing to give up their conquests in China, free Korea, withdraw from the SouthWest Pacific? Somehow I doubt that. Would they, in 1943, have been willing to make the Emperor, referred to in my family as “That son of a bitch” a figurehead, a highly restricted Constitutional monarch? They might and I mean might have been willing to have a negotiated peace but, did they in any way deserve it? Did the Nazi’s? Had the July 20th bomb plot succeeded, would we have negotiated a peace with Germany?

Over three million Russians were taken prisoners of war by the Germans, less than a million lived to be repatriated. The Russians replied in kind. Do I, with all my post war humanity have a problem with that? Absolutely not. After what was done in Western Russia in 1941 and at Stalingrad, do I have a problem with what the Russian soldiers did in Berlin in ’45? I am sorry to say, not much. One thing the German’s learned out that adventure was that they, “Ain’t gonna make war no more”. Ditto for the Nipponese. Perhaps had the lesson been better taught in 1918, 1939-45 might never have happened.

I am not exactly sure if I am spelling it or even translating it right but Rommel accused Hitler of living in a Vulcankookkooksheim of his own. Loosely translated that comes out to Cloud coo-coo land. You guys are rapidly approaching that point.

Were the Japanese from the West coast detained by Earl Warren and FDR? Yes, but somehow throwing Manzinar around in such a way as to make it sound like Dachau is, well, just a bit sickening. I have met Japanese born Americans who lived in the NY area before and during the war, none were detained or sent to camps. Germans and Italians were. Both the 441st RCT and 100th Infantry Battalion were recruited from those camps for Japanese Americans as well as translators for the Pacific. Again, I don’t think that many Austrian or German Jews were offered that opportunity by Hitler despite their outstanding patriotism and loyalty in the First World war.

Manzanar may not have been Dachau, but it was a concentration camp nonetheless. The men and women on the west coast were rounded up, their property seized or stolen, their homes and stores plundered. They were sent to the camps with nothing more than a single suitcase, and placed in “houses” with four families to a house. They were placed in the middle of the dessert with no air conditioning, no electricity, no running water, and communal outhouses.

Were we gassing them? Performing medical experiments on them? No. But we were torturing them.

Just because the Jews had it worse doesn’t mean the Japanese didn’t suffer. And just because offered them the choice to rot in that hell-hole or risk their lives in battle does not excuse our county’s behavior.

I’m not armchair quarterbacking. I’m trying to understand the mindset of the people who followed these evil orders.

They were placed in the middle of the dessert with no air conditioning, no electricity, no running water, and communal outhouses.

Not having air conditioning is considered inhumane? You will find that in 1941 very FEW places or homes were air conditioned. No running water – that’s a problem how? While a pain to go to the well and haul it in bucket by bucket full, it wasn’t unheard of in American homes in 1941 either. Communal outhouses……again I find it a bit “citified” of you to consider that as being inhumane. Electricity I might give you, but that’s about it.

If that is torture in your mind then many, many Americans all around the United States in 1941 were being tortured.

And NO, I do not support the idea that interning these people in camps around the US was ethical, legal, moral, or justified. The US Constitution was thrown out the window by Roosevelt and company (good progressive, liberal Democrats I might add) and ignored by choice.

For the record, BF, I do not find your comments as condemnation of me as an individual. I do find your comments of comdenation of the military as a whole and its reason for existence as condemnation. But if I am understanding you correctly, your condemnation is the machine that creates the military mind set and not the soldier individually. Your comments on murder and atrocities are a condemnation on the machine that created this and not the individual per se. Do I have you correct?

Correct. I do not condemn specific persons, because they do not know, or did not know or still do not know they evil they do. They are a consequence of generations of brainwashing and by “anti”-training, learn how not to think.

However, for those that can think, but still act in this evil ……

Ultimately, all human action is individual, and therefore, so is the responsibility

Not BF, not anybody can ever convince me that a) anyone can possibly “earn” that much money … b) the free market created the value (especially when so many of you “insist” this is not a true free market) … and c) that $2.4 million an hour is obscene, immoral and ultimately evil.

Charlie,
(1) I am not here to *convince you* of anything. Frankly, I am driving you to a RATIONAL REASONED approaches to your own self – no matter the cost to yourself, even if you have to abandoned decades of your own belief. Either you live a lie and pretend it is good, or live the truth, no matter how hard it may be.

Yes, I accept that you believe $2.4million an hour -to you- is immoral. Perhaps when I earned $5,000 an hr, you might have called me immoral (but I saved around a hundred million dollars, does that count?

So if a makes $2.4 million, but provides, say $100 million in value to others, is that still immoral?

But regardless of your opinion of me, matters not. That is your SUBJECTIVE view, and to each his own.

But “wrong”, “evil”, “worthy of attacking and destroying”… well, you need a lot more than your subjective view for me to support that….

BF, if you put that one hundred mill on the street at 3% a week, you’ll be even more wealthy!

God bless you (for doing so well).

But was your money made with the help of the corporations you rail against? Any of it? Because the $5 billion that hedge fund manager made sure and hell used corporations to do it. Is that now immoral or … however you make it is all that counts? Because that’s what I’m seeing behind your rational thinking …

Yes, Gman. The lottery is the new American Dream; one of the opiates “for” the masses; a bone thrown out by the government to keep suckers chasing the carrot. It is an absolute fraud. The money you’d “earn” from the lottery is no different than that “earned” by the hedge fund manager (Matthius …:)

Nobody can “earn” or “win” or “inheret” that much money; it is absurd.

I wasn’t comparing hedge funds to the lottery–you were. I was responding to a lottery question (whether it was okay or not). Hedge funds do involve luck as well (as you pointed out). My beef with hedge funds has nothing to do with the skill involved (or the luck). My beef with hedge funds is they are counterproductive to the greater good concept (so long as rewards are so obscene as $2.4 million an hour while somebody has to try and survive on $10.00 an hour, etc.). Nobody can “earn” $2.4 million an hour. Impossible, no matter what BF says. Can’t be done. The fact it is rewarded that way doesn’t make it “earned.”

Buck has it … how about all hedge fund managers (that actually produce profit) are paid at the same rate as teachers? The teachers probably had to pay at least as much for their education (probably more) and actually have to do some work (as opposed to commenting on blogs–that is not a knock, just an observation … 🙂

Charlie has lived in Brooklyn, Long Island (north shore) and the south shore, Little Italy in Manhattan and now in Joisey … he’s driven Jaguars, Cadillacs & Lincolns and now drives a used Volvo and a Honda … he had mucho gelt in his bad boy days and is surviving now (with no complaints–unemployment will probably carry me through my degree so I can teach little kids how to be red through and through someday) … big deal … big deal to BF’s $100,000,000 … to M’s shiny Lexus, etc. … me thinks yous guy might be missing the point of life (or maybe not). Whatever turns you on … but $2.4 million an hour while thousands go homeless will get that $2.4 million an hour guy robbed someday (maybe violently). Do you really need $100,000,000 BF? Do you really need the shiny Lexus, MaTT?

hedge fund manager. Actually, I am the director of middle office. If I could make 2.4mm / hr, believe me I would.. for about a week. And then I would retire to my private island, greater good be damned.

Does mental “work” count less than physical “work” to you? I sit in a chair all day – the closes I come to sweating is when I walk up the stairs instead of using the elevator.

But I am smart.

I work craptastic hours.

I bust my ass.

I come home exhausted.

…

Sometimes I get this from my wife – she’s a teacher whose on her feet all day – she comes home exhausted too, and seems to feel that I didn’t have to work hard because I sat in a chair instead of having to chase around screaming children all day. It’s crap. In many ways, it’s less work to work construction.

I know you were kidding, but still. Grr.

As for the inequality, I agree in principle, though of course not to the same extent. My bosses make 100x what I do (and I make a little more than 2x my wife, the teacher, who is herself paid about 2x average).

But they also bust their asses. And they’re also smart. And they’ve being doing it for decades. And they studied. And they risked everything to start their own fund. They are entitled to the fruits of their labors – to have more than the rest of us, to the luxuries and comfort.

Matt, if people could live with dignity (to include work, no matter what kind), healthcare, equal educational opportunty, etc., I’d have no problem with anyone who worked hard earning more than the street sweeper (so long as the street sweeper can have that dignity, educate his, etc.). The inequities come into play because for your owner to 100x what you make, etc., there have to be people making spit and livign without the same opportunities (that’s just a fact no matter how BF wants to spin it). What is behind that $2.4 million an hour? I’m assuming there are several other people at play (working) … all the way down the line to the guy who keeps your office clean at night, etc. Fruits of one’s labor is a relative term (I frown on it big time because it is usually used in a context that suggests one person did all the work.) The person who started the fun (you said he took the risk). Where did his money come from? Was it handed down? Did he bust his butt (all by himself) to actually earn it? I think you can see where I’m going with this. The greater good can be appeased (as it is now and has been since the start of this country when slavery wasn’t an issue) … it can ignored (thanks Obama) or it can rise up and be very pissed off (see the current situation in the Middle East). When people get fed up enough, it’s the $2.4 million an hour guy who better be on a plane to Dubai, not the guy cleaning his office.

True Capitalism creates wealth. What they are doing seems more like criminal scheming to me. This should be fixed, but not by stealing vast amounts of job creating wealth from capital, for socialist purposes.

@Freedom Flies a Red Flag: Welcome to the asylum. Like you, I’m a veteran as well. At some point when time permeits, I’m sure we will have some great debates. I don’t watch Glen Beck, or any other TV pundit, waste of good time if you ask me. I’m on the conservative side of things, but mostly an American who see’s his country in deep crap economically. I don’t agree with the greater good theory, and think our government is totally corrupt. Lastly, please don’t do the Mr. G-Man thingy, I work for a living, LOL.

@Mathius: I don’t know why our country did some of the things they did in the past, I can only learn from it and not make the same mistakes in the future. Now, if our government could be that way, things may be different in the future, but that is unlikely.

Flag, you’re using emotion to override logic – isn’t this something you always object to you when it’s the other way around?

Logically, I know that my wife is not worth a thousand lives, but I love her and that would make it impossible for me to sacrifice her in this way. Emotion would rule the day, but this does not make it “right.”

Had to look up Evelyn Salt … saw it was Angelina Jolie (beautiful woman but those tattoos are a huge turnoff). I guess some movie I’ll never see …

BF doesn’t agree with killing 1 to save 1,000 … but If I’m correct on this (and I may be wrong), you’d let thousands starve to death if they couldn’t feed themselves (those out of work in a depression you deem unworth of charity)? This in a no government scenario. Do I have that right (serious question)?

Michael Krause who campaigned tirelessly for her release [from North Korean prison]. Salt then agrees to marry Krause as a result of his intervention to save her from the ordeal, but she warns him that she works for the CIA and that “he is not safe with her.”

..Orlov congratulates her on killing Russia’s president, but criticizes her decision to marry as it was not part of her mission. Orlov then has Michael killed in front of Salt as a test, but she does not react. He then briefs her on her next mission: the commandeering of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the assassination of sitting American President Howard Lewis. Once he has finished, Salt stabs Orlov with a broken vodka bottle and then kills the other agents as well.

She does believe in the death of one innocent to save millions from nuclear holocaust – even if it was her beloved husband.

It was the right choice for her because she was consistent with her own principle, no matter who that “one” was.

Where as, for you, you are evil because you contradict your own principle because your principle is NOT at all “1 for many” – that is your lie – your principle is: “It all depends on who is the one and who is the many” – you actually do not care about any measure of innocence in your calculation

Okay D13-I finally read everything. Good article by the way. Now I find I am a little uncertain of the meaning of all your posts. So tell me where I’ve misunderstood-If I have :).

Basically you believe that Iran is our biggest problem but we should stay out of any disagreements in the ME. But in order to do so we must stop being dependent on the ME for oil. And if we do not become independent-at some point we will be forced to go to war in the ME and it will be WW3. If I have this right-than I have to ask -what type of event could happen which would make you believe we should interfere(Iran going nuclear comes to mind).

I’m gonna try this again-I don’t think I was clear enough. What is confusing me -as long as we are dependent on ME oil -it seems that we would have to be involved but you say we shouldn’t be involved-so what type of action would have to happen to warrant us becoming involved?

The process of transforming civilians into military personnel has been described by military historian Gwynne Dyer as a form of conditioning in which inductees are encouraged to partially submerge their individuality for the good of their unit.

….gets the recruits used to instinctive obedience and following the orders….

…”Before retiring from the military, I spent almost a quarter of a century as an army infantry officer and a psychologist, learning and studying how to enable people to kill. Believe me, we are very good at it. But it does not come naturally; you have to be taught to kill” (Grossman “Trained to Kill”).

.. Killing is not natural. So, the military conditions their men and women to act instinctively. Conditioning begins as early as basic training….

Military historian Gwynne Dyer is one voice among millions of vets. Because you choose to take his word as gospel does not make it so. Do you for some reason believe that his 25 years as an infantry officer trumps the 60+ years of military service experience that you have at your fingertips in just D13, G, and myself? Why don’t you ask the veterans here what they think instead of relying on some obscure guy who said what he believes?

As “Red” Carlson said 70 years ago, “Gung Ho”. That is what I learned. I am part of a team, I trust that team and I can accomplish my mission, any mission, with the team that I trust.

In my short stint in the US Army, over 40 years ago, I learned to:

Set the example,
Be technically and tactically proficient,
Know myself, my limitations and seek self improvement,
Keep my men informed,
Know my men and look out for their welfare,
Ensure the task is understood, supervised and
accomplished,
Train my men as a team,
Make sound and timely decisions,
Develop a sense of responsibility among my subordinates
Employ my command in accordance with its capabilities
Seek responsibility and take responsibility

Take out the military jargon, substitute employees or workers and I had a recipe for a successful life.

Did I learn to kill? only when absolutely necessary. Did I learn to kill indiscriminately? No. Did I learn to respond instinctively? Yes. Did I learn, from my NCO’s, to study, interpret, and if necessary question my orders? Absolutely. That, rather than mindless roboticism, is what makes the American Army great.

I refer you to the very last, four page chapter of Steve Ambrose’s “Citizen Soldier” regarding what those 1940’s troopers learned. Cooperation works!

Actually I see nothing wrong with that part of Dyer’s comments provided. Training to act instinctively is not the same as simply “when in doubt fire for effect”.

It is simply one more example of taking a statement that has one meaning and then using it, or part of it, to defend a position, that assigns a different meaning. If the words are a little foggy that is all the better.

The other fallacy of the claim is the difference between basic and advanced training of my day and that of your day.

If the proposition were true they wouldn’t be able to dig holes big enough to bury all the dead in Irag and Afgan-land. We wouldn’t have our boys killed trying to hold fire to avoid civilian deaths. None of our boys and girls would have ever been killed by a car bomber or someone carrying an explosive vest. After all, they never would have gotten close enough under the “when in doubt fire for effect” mindset.

All I can say is that sometimes crap is just crap.

Hope your coming week is good.
Will be mostly out of touch till next Friday. Then perhaps I can get to work fulfilling that promise I made to contribute.

So the FACT that Americans expend about 250,000 rounds of ammo per “kill” means…. either I’m right or the Americans are incredibly bad shots.

US runs out of bullets uses 250000 per kill.

This is one of those little known facts that start to show just how much work it takes to actually kill someone in Afghanistan.

US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan – an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed – that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as changes in military doctrine.

… Quote:
The Department of Defense’s increased requirements for small- and medium-calibre ammunitions have largely been driven by increased weapons training requirements, dictated by the army’s transformation to a more self-sustaining and lethal force – which was accelerated after the attacks of 11 September, 2001 – and by the deployment of forces to conduct recent US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
said the report by the General Accounting Office (GAO).

Estimating how many bullets US forces have expended for every insurgent killed is not a simple or precisely scientific matter. The former head of US forces in Iraq, General Tommy Franks, famously claimed that his forces “don’t do body counts”.

But senior officers have recently claimed “great successes” in Iraq, based on counting the bodies of insurgents killed. Maj-Gen Rick Lynch, the top US military spokesman in Iraq, said 1,534 insurgents had been seized or killed in a recent operation in the west of Baghdad. Other estimates from military officials suggest that at least 20,000 insurgents have been killed in President George Bush’s “war on terror”.

John Pike, director of the Washington military research group GlobalSecurity.org, said that, based on the GAO’s figures, US forces had expended around six billion bullets between 2002 and 2005.

Sorry, Gents, but your proud proclamations are amply disproven by reality on the battlefield.

There are enough youtube videos that watching them would take months that would amply contradict your statements….or do you claim that literally thousands of American troops shown are “atypical” or insane?

…or the literally hundreds of villages in Vietnam obliterated for no reason other than “we think we saw a Charlie”?

I see, and understand your point of view. Here’s where I run into a problem, Armies have always been, sadly. If one country has and army, navy ect., then everyone reacts, to keep that army from invasion. It would be a much more peaceful world in NO countries had any military. But, here we are, and many countries have them. This could qualify as humanity being stuck on stupid. As long as someone wants to control others, we are doomed to this reality.

Yet…
List of countries with no army
Country Comments References
Costa Rica Costa Rica was the first country to formally abolish military forces. The constitution has forbidden a standing military since 1949

Grenada Has not had a standing army since 1983 due to an American-led invasion.

Kiribati
Liechtenstein Abolished its army in 1868 because it was deemed too costly. Army is only permitted in times of war, but that situation has never occurred.

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Samoa

Solomon Islands

Tuvalu

Vatican City

Haiti Haiti’s military disbanded in June 1995, but rebels have demanded its re-establishment.

Iceland Has not had a standing army since 1869, but is a member of NATO.

I understand that, completely. But how does a country have adaquate self defense against a country with a standing army, without one to equal it? Pesonnally, I’d like every American to own their own weapons, and without any military, let’s see which country would invade. How do you think that would turn out?

USA:
Advantages;
* two largest oceans on Earth covering left and right flanks
* Northern flank, a tiny population – about New York numbers – inhabiting an enormous territory – more police in New York then the entire size of their army – they are more scared of US then US possibly could be scared of them
* Southern flank, trapped in a slim corridor across a river. Beat once, twice, three times – they ain’t interested in Round 4.

Disadvantages;
None.

Military
1,580,255 in active
864,547 “ready” reserve
50 million home guard

Flag, I’ll ask once again, in simpler terms. If the U.S. had NO miltary, and only had the armed populous, how would we fare against an invasion of a foreign country(s) that had a standing army? Simple question, win or lose?

A couple of observations D13:
1) In all that green on your map, the Muslims begrudge Israel that little spit of land. I agree with you, Israel is whippng boy to keep the Arab world stirred up.
2) If this scenerio is true, then Iran is pulling off a 30+ yr plan for domination of the ME. Our government can’t seem to keep to a 2 year plan let alone a 30 yr one.
3) The president said today that he wants to reduce oil imports by 30% or more in a few short years. This after 30 yrs of the DOEnergy was tasked with making us energy independent. He will reduce imports by buying from the Brazilians. No positive plans for drilling here. No significant mention of nuclear. No mention of the expected growth rate for that period which means the 30% is probably closer to 45%. Fail to plan, plan to fail. Had we started drilling in ANWR and off SoCal when Bush43 wanted to early in his first term, we would have that oil now. With the Bakke field and some assist minor assist bionut fuel, we might be able to eliminate imports from the ME. They will still sell to Europe, Japan, China and India but it would not be our problem.

I am well aware that he wants to keep his job. It also seems that every ego in that is in that office is not happy until they have a war record. He has 3 now and seems to be detached from all of them.
It is also frustrating that we have had a whole department that has spent $Bs over 30+ yrs tasked with formulating an energy police that any one of 100,000 could have formulated in under 6 months.
He finally spoke up about gasoline prices only to push solutions off until a “policy” is formulated. His head of the DOE has had 2 years to do that. Can his ass and find someone who can. Every business man knows that in tough times you run down your inventory because it is your reserve capital. We have lots of oil and n.gas as well as coal in the ground. That is our national inventory. Use it.
Troubles in the ME has haunted us since the ’73 oil crisis and before. Stop buying their oil and contributing to their war chests. It’s all elementary.

Police = Policy
It’s late, I’m tired, worked a full day at home plus took wife in for a med procedure. The simpleton in the WH just ticked me off today. Another nothing speech, no solutions, imbecilic goals, promises, promises,….

Union Army General William Tecumseh Sherman’s ‘March to the Sea’ in November/December 1864 destroyed the resources required for the South to make war. Sherman is considered one of the first military commanders to deliberately and consciously use total war as a military strategy. General Ulysses S. Grant and President Abraham Lincoln initially opposed the plan until Sherman convinced them of its necessity

The government of the U.S. has any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war – to take their lives, their homes, their land, their everything…war is simply unrestrained by the Constitution…to the persistent [enemy], why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better…Mjr. Gen. W. T. Sherman, Jan. 31, 1864

As long as war between societies has existed there has been a concerted effort of those societies to support the warriors warring for them. And as long as war has existed, cities have been burned and nonviolent civilians have been getting killed in mass.

It’s not like the world woke up in the 1860’s and decided that since US generals think it’s a good idea, war should include whole societies.

BF – ” So you hold the same sick, evil belief that those not in combat are targets of combat. ”

BL – So you are in denial that civilians have been targeted all throughout history?

It’s not a belief, but rather an observation of history/reality. And I wouldn’t describe observation as “sick” or “evil”.

I’m not arguing that they should/should not be targeted, but rather that the claims which you support your argument with are historically inaccurate.

The US Strategic Bombing Survey reveals that the Japanese began peace feelers shortly after their defeat at Midway in April, ’42. The Japanese figured they had 16 months from Pearl Harbor to beat the US, without one setback. Midway was the setback that guaranteed their eventual surrender.

George Marshall, Roosevelt’s army chief of staff, would not hear of any peace attempts. As we now can see, the whole purpose of Pearl Harbor, from the Roosevelt POV, was to get us into a war with Germany. A secondary purpose was to install Mao Tse-tung in China, which demanded the annihilation of the Japanese and the selling out of Chiang Kai-shek. We can see now the idea behind the Communization of China – the transfer of US jobs to Chinese slavers.

Peace feelers continued through ’42, ’43 and ’44, when the blood was really flowing in the Pacific. They tried through the Soviets, the British and the Siamese. Marshall would not consider anything but Unconditional Surrender, knowing the Japanese would not give up Hirohito to the hangman, which didn’t happen anyway. But this was always threatened, deliberately driving the Japanese to desperate acts to protect their god-leader. All well understood by the psychiatrists in FDR’s gang. Even after Okinawa, Marshall said the desperate attempts at surrender were “premature.” Going through the list of terrible battles in the Pacific while the Japanese were frantically attempting to end the war is mind-numbing.

On August 24, fate took a turn, and several off-course German bombers accidentally bombed residential areas of London.[101][102][103][104]

The next day, the RAF bombed Berlin for the first time, targeting Tempelhof airfield and the Siemens factories in Siemenstadt.[105]

These attacks were seen as indiscriminate bombings by the Germans due to their inaccuracy, and this infuriated Hitler</b.;[106][107][108] he ordered that the 'night piracy of the British' be countered by a concentrated night offensive against the island, and especially London.[109] In a public speech in Berlin on 4 September 1940, Hitler announced that:

The other night the English had bombed Berlin. So be it. But this is a game at which two can play. When the British Air Force drops 2000 or 3000 or 4000 kg of bombs, then we will drop 150 000, 180 000, 230 000, 300 000, 400 000 kg on a single night. When they declare they will attack our cities in great measure, we will eradicate their cities. The hour will come when one of us will break – and it will not be National Socialist Germany!
—Adolf Hitler [110]

…possibly as a result of the plea from Roosevelt to avoid civilian casualties, Goering canceled the operation and prohibited the bombing of military and industrial targets within the Warsaw residential area called Praga.[35] A report made on 4 September by the French air attache in Warsaw stated clearly that so far the Germans had tried to hit only military and economic targets.

Opps, you missed again.

Rotterdam…the attack was performed against a defended part of a city vital for the military objectives and in the front-line

….British propaganda inflated the number of civilian casualties by a factor 30.[75]

International news agencies vastly exaggerated the events, portraying Rotterdam as a city mercilessly destroyed by terror bombing without regard for civilian life, with 30,000 dead lying under the ruins.[65] Neither claim was true. Furthermore, the bombing was against well-defined targets, albeit in the middle of the city

So when the Germans killed innocent citizens YOU claim it is a “military objective”.

And when the madman conquers a big chunk of Europe and decides to go after England you claim some relativist moral righteous bull shit to claim the Brits committed crimes but the Germans were good guys????

SK attempted a moral equivalence to justify the slaughter of millions of people by the US by pointing to German attacks on London, inferring the nefarious scheme was initiated by the Germans.

He was in enormous error. Churchill began the specific attacks on civilian populations, and not Hitler.

In the American mind, Germany is always wrong, and the Allies are always right, even if they do evil. When Americans do evil, it is always “sad, but necessary”, or “unavoidable” or “to save even more lives”.

When Germany or “American enemies” do anything, it is always “terrorists” or “mindless murderers” or ” or “sub-human Muslim mindless fanatics”.

But as I said before, Americans hold no mirror to gaze into to see themselves.

I think Churchill went after Hamburg after Hitler bombed London. The US and Brits had air force issues over this; the Brits felt they had to bomb populated areas to force an end to the war; the US originally did not agree. They tried once, were terribly ineffective (lost many planes) and by wars end (Dresden, etc.), the Brits bombed during the day and US at night (or vice versa) but the point is the US wound up supporting the bombing of populated areas (not just military targets).

Actually, it is a fact.
The documents – sealed by law after the war for 50, 75 and 100 years – are coming to light.

Ample documentation in the form of cables between Japan and Russia, Switzerland and Sweden for the US administration all demonstrate this fact. The US ignored them, and after Potsdam declaration of “unconditional surrender” made such attempts futile.

Let’s go with your scenario….I know that your premise is that the United States forced Japan in to the war…..but history shows othrewise and that is fact but that is not the debate here….you are bringing up that the Japanese wanted peace after their defeat at Midway as if that is significant. It is not significant at all and why shohuld it be? YOu kick sand in my face at the beach, I am not going to be satisfied with kicking sand back in yours and calling it even. YOu initiated the violence. I will make sure you do not initiate violence again against me by whatever means is necessary. I will not simply turn the other cheek and why should I?

I am with the Colonel here … Japan was no less a thug nation than Germany (what they did in China/Southeast Asia, etc.) and their handling of POW’s was as bad as what Germany did with POW’s (Russians especially). They were justifiably brought to the table (yes, even with the two nukes; it shortened the war). I know there are those who think they would’ve surrendered without the nukes, but I think Truman did what he had to do under the circumstances.

Thud? Come on guys, I already told yous I wouldn’t join the communist party so long as it declares itself against non-violent revolutions. Truman, by the way, was my favorite President. Uh-oh …

Anyway, it’s another greater good issue (for me) BF. All nations should engage in policing actions against atrocities; not cherry picking according to oil needs, etc. But since we do cherry pick now, it’s best we do nothing in the false name of offering help (Obama’s bullshit the other night). That was him trying even harder to be a Republican.

Trouble 99% of the time, you do not know who is the “good guy” and who is the “bad guy” – so you’re bound to blunder more times then not – and you become the bad guy.

Secondly, you cannot be everywhere. There are strict limits to the extent and number of involvements.
Which means you do have “cherry” pick.
Which means you are more apt to choose where your interests are closer to be met.
Which means it will always look “self- serving” no matter what.

Best answer: the reason for intervention must be well articulated – the bar must be very high, the case extreme and must articulated to the People FIRST and let the People decide Yea or Nay.

Over three million Russians were taken prisoners of war by the Germans, less than a million lived to be repatriated. The Russians replied in kind. Do I, with all my post war humanity have a problem with that? Absolutely not. After what was done in Western Russia in 1941 and at Stalingrad, do I have a problem with what the Russian soldiers did in Berlin in ’45? I am sorry to say, not much

Ah, the insanity.

A group of my neighbors go off and kill your son, so you believe you have a right to slaughter my family in revenge….
(sigh)

And people wonder how such massive atrocities continue when so many people hold SK’s belief system of revenge.

As I pointed out before they decided that they weren’t gonna make war no more. If that’s what it took, then that’s what it took.

If a group of neighbors including you went off and killed my son and then came back and killed my second son and then possibly would kill my third son, you are damned right I’d slaughter your family and those of your co participants. It would not be in revenge, it would be to protect that third son. OK, maybe a little revenge too. Nobody slaughtered the Czechs to get back at the Germans.

Twice in one century those folks almost destroyed the world. Add your 109 million dead to the 30 or 40 million in the first war and the related 50 or 80 or 100 million they made possible by bringing the Bolsheviks to power! It’s a miracle and a tribute to our humanity that we did not kill every single one and salt the land so that nothing would ever grow there again.

Sounds like a threat to me- collective bargaining provisions are “what has kept workplace peace for half a century.” Sounds like there Card Check BS-declare to the world your position so we know who to harrass!!

There was a time when the protection rackets were a staple of organized crime. Shop keepers and businessmen in the cities would pay “protection” to the neighborhood mobster in order to be protected from the neighborhood mobster. Anyone who was brave or foolish enough to refuse to pay-up would face dire consequences. Of course the business would also be protected from shake-downs by the local police, other hoods and union thugs.

In a nostalgic attempt to revive the protection rackets from the glory days of organized crime, our public sector union friends in Wisconsin are making the business community “an offer they can’t refuse.” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:

Members of Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, have begun circulating letters to businesses in southeast Wisconsin, asking then to support workers’ rights by putting up a sign in their windows.

If businesses fail to comply, the letter says, “Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means ‘no’ to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.”

Jim Parrett, a field representative of Council 24 for Southeast Wisconsin, confirmed the contents of the letter, which carries his signature. But he added that the union was also circulating letters to businesses thanking them for supporting workers’ rights.

According to Parrett similar attempts to shake-down the business community are being organized by public sector unions throughout the state. WSEU members have been on the street pushing their signs which read “This Business Supports Workers Rights” on area businesses and keeping track of those who refuse to be intimidated into surrendering their sovereign rights as free citizens.

Follow up letters that are being sent to responsible members of the business community state that “It is unfortunate that you have chosen ‘not’ to support public workers’ rights in Wisconsin,” and remind the recipient that they have been offered a sign by a local public employee and their business will suffer the wrath of the more than 1,300 union members in the area. Parrett’s letter also warns the reader that the collective bargaining provisions are “what has kept workplace peace for half a century.”

Apparently the WSEU feels that those who work and pay the taxes which in turn pay the public sector union members have no right to support any position which is not approved by the union.

The Union Grove Chamber of Commerce has received numerous calls from members concerning the union sign campaign and threatened boycotts. Most of the businesses would prefer to keep politics out of the workplace and remain neutral, but according to the union there is no such thing as neutrality. Terri Gray the executive director for the chamber said that the union push started earlier in the week and it is not yet clear if their tactics were having an impact on local business.

When reached for comment on Wednesday, Jesse Jackson said that the tactics being used by the unions seemed reasonable to him. Of course Jesse encourages his union pals to “remain nonviolent and disciplined in their protests,” wink-wink.

JERUSALEM – The Israeli military on Thursday released a map detailing what it says are nearly 1,000 underground bunkers, weapons storage facilities and monitoring sites built by the militant Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Many of the sites on the map are located south of the Litani River in Lebanon, the zone where Hezbollah is banned from keeping weapons under the U.N.-sponsored truce that ended Israel’s summer 2006 war with the guerrilla group.

The military says Hezbollah has set up some 550 bunkers, 300 monitoring sites and 100 weapons storage facilities. Military officials would offer no other comment.

The militant group, which controls the strongest armed force in Lebanon, did not acknowledge that the Israeli map was accurate and accused Israel of employing scare tactics.

“They are trying to tell us that they will destroy Lebanon. Let them do it if they can and I tell them they cannot,” said Khodr Noureddine, a member of Hezbollah’s political bureau.

He speculated that Israel might have released the map because Hezbollah’s leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, told the group last month to be prepared to invade northern Israel if a new war between the two sides breaks out.

Israel has for years accused Hezbollah of rearming with the help of Iran and Syria, setting up “rocket villages” in southern Lebanon.

The militant group sent nearly 4,000 rockets crashing into northern Israel during the 2006 war, using up much of its estimated stockpile. But Israel says Hezbollah has since replenished its arms stores with even more powerful weapons.

The Israel-Lebanon border has been tense but largely quiet since the war, which killed around 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis, according to official counts from each side.

The doctor comes in and says, “Ah, I’m glad to see you’ve regained
consciousness. You probably won’t remember, but you were in a huge
pile-up on the freeway. You’re going to be okay, you’ll walk again and
everything, but your penis was severed in the accident and we couldn’t
find it”.

The man groans, but the doctor goes on, “You’ve got $9,000 in insurance
compensation coming and we now have the technology to build a new penis.
They work great but they don’t come cheap. It’s roughly $1,000 an inch”.

The man perks up.

“So”, the doctor says, “You must decide how many inches you want. I
understand that you’ve been married for over forty years and this is
something you should discuss with your wife. If you had a five incher
before and get a nine incher now she might be a bit intimidated. If you
had a nine incher before and you decide to only invest in a five incher
now, she might be disappointed. It’s important that she plays a role in
helping you make a decision”.

The man agrees to talk it over with his wife.

The doctor comes back the next day and asks, “So, have you spoken with
your wife”?

A man is driving down a deserted stretch of highway when he notices a sign out of the corner of his eye…It reads:
‘SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION 10 MILES’

He thinks this is a figment of his imagination and drives on without second thought….

Soon he sees another sign which reads:

‘SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION 5 MILES’

Suddenly he begins to realize that these signs are for real and drives past a third sign saying:

‘SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION NEXT RIGHT’

His curiosity gets the best of him and he pulls into the drive. On the far side of the parking lot is a stone building with a small sign next to the door reading:

‘SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS’
He climbs the steps and rings the bell. The door is answered by a nun in a long black habit who asks, “What may we do for you my son?”
He answers, “I saw your signs along the highway and was interested in possibly doing business…..”
“Very well my son. Please follow me.” He is led through many winding passages and is soon quite disoriented. The nun stops at a closed door and tells the man, “Please knock on this door.”
He does so and another nun in a long habit, holding a tin cup answers the door.. This nun instructs, “Please place $100 in the cup then go through the large wooden door at the end of the hallway.”
He puts $100 in the cup, eagerly trots down the hall and slips through the door pulling it shut behind him the door locks, and he finds himself back in the parking lot facing another sign:

‘GO IN PEACE.YOU HAVE JUST BEEN SCREWED BY THE SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS. SERVES YOU RIGHT YOU SINNER’

I’m not condemning anyone. I want to understand what makes their sense of right and wrong take a temporary vacation just because someone with stars and bars told them to do something.
Reply

Just A Citizen Says:
March 31, 2011 at 10:26 am

Mathius

What makes you think Taxation is NOT Theft?

What value do you put on the life of an unknown person who has attacked you vs the life of your family and friends?

By the way. You moved the discussion from “legal” to “evil” in your comments. Soldiers are trained to question what they are taught as “illegal” actions. Not make determinations on what is evil in the middle of WAR ZONE.

Just as YOU, as a citizen, are taught and trained as to what is illegal and what is not.

One other thing to ponder with respect to your question about why men abandon what they know is right and wrong during war.

First, you are judging from where you stand not them. Maybe they don’t see it as abandoning anything. Which goes to point two.

Second, WAR and all that comes with it is part of Human Nature. We have this strange ability to switch from peace to war and back again.

Govt’s, of all stripes, are a power that capitalizes on this nature. Resulting in more war over time than would normally exist. But humans are not an inherently completely peaceful specie. After all, we are the progeny of predators.

Agreed the US did the embargo at the request of various world leaders after 14 years of Imperial expansion into other countries for their resources. Of course, an embargo is an act of war in some definitions and diplomatic manuvers in other definitions….fact being, the Japanese Empire was running rampant in the East and Southeast. t was out of natural resources and foraging for others. The Japanese Empire was headed even further to the South China Seas after New Zealand and Australia. It was part of a Triparte agreement with Germany and Italy to inevitably rule the world. The Japanese Empire had its sights set on Hawaii before the oil embargo. Dutch Harbor was also in the Japanese military war planning in 1935 after the Japan pulled out of the League of Nations in 1933. I am looking for the link for you in my archives from War College to refer you to the military war planning of the Japanese IMperial Army…in case war with the United States was inevitable and it was deemed inevitable in 1936…if memory serves correctly…the oil embargo did not start until 1940. The wheels were already in motion as it was a matter of time.

Agreed the US did the embargo at the request of various world leaders after 14 years of Imperial expansion into other countries for their resources.

The US embargoed a nation that was not at war with the US, nor threatened war with the US.

fact being, the Japanese Empire was running rampant in the East and Southeast.

Geography lesson: Asia is not USA.

The Japanese Empire was headed even further to the South China Seas after New Zealand and Australia.

Do not confuse strategy with goal.

Japan was -under embargo by US and UK- was fully aware that to break the embargo and seize Dutch East India, Japan would need to confront the British fleets in the Pacific – which required action against them and their bases.

The Japanese goal: oil and control of China/Manchuria.

It was part of a Triparte agreement with Germany and Italy to inevitably rule the world.

hahahahahahahhahahahaaahahah
!Whew!
Yep, the thought they could rule the world- a great lie. That was never their goal as they were not stupid.

German goal: unify greater Germany fractured by Versailles.
Italy goal: Empire like the British, over North and Central Africa
Japanese goal: access to resources in Manchuria requiring strategic advantage over Russia in the Pacific.

Flag, D13, the truth is that there was plenty of opportunity to avoid war, but everyone refused to back down and be reasonable – Japan didn’t want to fight us, but saw it as inevitable – the US didn’t want to fight Japan but saw that they would be pulled in eventually. So both sides jockeyed for position, trying to look like they weren’t the aggressor, while circling into better positions for the coming war.

We embargoed their oil, they tried to take out our pacific fleet. There are easily seen as preemptive or defensive moves, but to the other side, it’s casus belli.

The real cause of WWII: Pride, greed, insanity.

Oh, and the crippling of the German economy in the wake of WWI (which was itself caused by pride, greed, and insanity).

the US didn’t want to fight Japan but saw that they would be pulled in eventually.

No, this is not true.

FDR urgently needed to involve himself in the European conflict – but Hitler was not stupid. Though America was actively sinking and seizing German shipping, and arming and supplying England, Hitler forbid his navy from engaging Americans.

FDR knew about the secret pact between Japan and Germany – and organized a detail plan to cause Japan to go to war, trigger the pact with Germany and have Germany go to war with US -Hitler believing that Japan would then go to war with Russia.

“Tell me what were the names, tell me what were the names if you had a friend on the good Ruben James”. So much for not engaging the US Navy.

Stupid is declaring war on the United States in December ’41 after throwing everything you had into Russia in June and getting bogged down that first winter. Now, that’s what I call stupid, monumentally stupid. Only other explanation is the hand of God.

Franco managed to abrogate a whole bunch of promises he made to Hitler and Mussolini. He got away with it. Did Japan really expect Germany to jump in? That’s a question I have never seen answered.

No, they were living up to their end of the Treaty with Japan – it was Japan that stabbed the Germans in the back. Germany was to declare against the Americans, and force Americans into a two front war.

Remember, the Germans were avoiding engaging American ships in the Atlantic, and supplies to UK were steaming in. With the declaration, the wolf packs would begin to prey on the -up to them- untouched American merchant ships.

Japan needed the Americans to split her navies between the Atlantic and Pacific to have even a fighting chance.

Germany needed those Soviet troops in Siberia to be pinned and not moved West.

It was a good plan – except Japan was very afraid of Russia. Japan was unsure she could hold off the Soviet Siberian Army while Japan was invading Philiphines, South East Asia toward India, holding in China and pushing South to New Guinea. Her troops were spread thin, and should the Russians make a move, there would be no reserves left.

Japan gambled that if she held success for 16 months against the US, she would be ready then to take on the Russians.

But Midway ended that hope, and Japan could not afford a war with Russia.

It was critical for the Germans that Japan declare war, so to keep the 4.5 million man Siberian Army engaged in the Far East.

Stalin, through his spy “Red Serge” had confirmation that the Japanese would not invade Siberia, so shifted 2.5 million troops to ….. Stalingrad. The rest is history as they say.

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30–A series of new undercover phone calls reveals that contrary to the claims of Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards and other supporters of the nation’s largest abortion chain, the organization does not provide mammograms for women.

In the tapes, a Live Action actor calls 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in 27 different states, inquiring about mammograms at Planned Parenthood. Every Planned Parenthood, without exception, tells her she will have to go elsewhere for a mammogram, and many clinics admit that no Planned Parenthood clinics provide this breast cancer screening procedure. “We don’t provide those services whatsoever,” admits a staffer at Planned Parenthood of Arizona. Planned Parenthood’s Comprehensive Health Center clinic in Overland Park, KS explains to the caller, “We actually don’t have a, um, mammogram machine, at our clinics.”

Opponents of defunding Planned Parenthood have argued in Congress and elsewhere that the organization provides many vital health care services other than abortion, such as mammograms. Most prominently, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards recently appeared on The Joy Behar Show to oppose the Pence Amendment to end Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer subsidies, claiming, “If this bill ever becomes law, millions of women in this country are gonna lose their healthcare access–not to abortion services–to basic family planning, you know, mammograms.”

The calls were recorded by Live Action, the youth-led pro-life group responsible for recent undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood staff, from management on down, willing to aid and abet the sex trafficking of young girls at 7 clinics in 4 different states. Live Action president Lila Rose says the new recordings further confirm Planned Parenthood’s corruption: “Planned Parenthood is first and foremost an abortion business, but Planned Parenthood and its allies will say almost anything to try and cover up that fact and preserve its taxpayer funding. It’s not surprising that an organization found concealing statutory rape and helping child sex traffickers would misrepresent its own services so brazenly, playing on women’s fears in order to protect their tax dollars.”

Former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Johnson notes that the recordings demonstrate Planned Parenthood is not a comprehensive health care provider. “For so long PP has touted that they are a provider of mammogram services. This is just one of the lies that PP uses to draw people into their clinics. PP is not able to provide quality services on their own, so they are forced to lie to the public about services they don’t provide–and mammograms are just one of those services.”

Both Rose and Johnson call on Congress to revoke all taxpayer subsidies from Planned Parenthood. In the last reported year, Planned Parenthood received $363 million in government money.

Gonna have to give you this one-From researching they have a few places, not many that actually give mammograms but for the most part they give vouchers to have the test done free elsewhere if you qualify.

Or maybe I spoke too soon-More research is needed. And what’s with this Koman Foundation-we give them money and these people give them money and somehow, per this article at least-those grants are the only places that actually give mammograms and the voucher program may not even be going on anymore. ????

If you haven’t seen the latest Live Action video about Planned Parenthood, take a few minutes to watch it. They shred the last remnant of respect that Planned Parenthood appears to have.

If Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide mammograms, what are they doing with the $350,000,000 in federal aid each year? They “assure” us that those dollars do not fund abortion services, but where are those dollars going?

Furthermore, where are all of the grant dollars provided by the Susan G. Komen Foundation going? They’ve gotten into hot water numerous times for providing grants to Planned Parenthood. According to a statement on their website:

And while Komen Affiliates provide funds to pay for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities, in some areas, the only place that poor, uninsured or under-insured women can receive these services are through programs run by Planned Parenthood.

These facilities serve rural women, poor women, Native American women, women of color, and the un- and under-insured. As part of our financial arrangements, we monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.

According to LifeNews, the Susan G. Komen Foundation gave $3 million between 2003-2008. This is a huge, money-making organization. Every where that you see a pink ribbon, that’s mostly the Komen Foundation. If they’ve built a wall between Planned Parenthood’s abortion services to provide breast health care, but none of the locations provide mammograms, where is the money going?

Per the Komen website, they list three community grants that have gone to Planned Parenthood for breast health. Two appear to provide mammograms: a Madison, WI program in 2007 and a Dallas, TX program in 2009. Compared to all of the other organizations receiving grants for mammograms, this seems extraordinarily low.

This is not a situation in which a conservative blogger is smirking and saying “gotcha!” This is extremely important to me. Breast and ovarian cancer run in my family. Even at 29, I face statistically overwhelming odds of getting one or both of the diseases. I’m outraged that I’ve been tricked into thinking that Komen and Planned Parenthood were actually helping low-income women beat breast cancer.

The one reason I justifed Planned Parenthood’s federal funding was their supposed service in these areas. However, they have duped us all. In the Live Action video, only 27 clinics in 30 states are called. That still leaves plenty, so I did more research among their 800 clinics.

So far, I’ve only found the three programs listed on the Komen site, a program in Waco, TX, which is also funded by Komen, and a program in Nassau County, NY. I’ve searched through 15 states, and none of the Planned Parenthood clinics provide mammograms. Out of 15 states, that’s just five communities that may have had a program for free mammograms at some point in the past 10 years.

Planned Parenthood’s main site doesn’t list mammogram services anywhere. They just list “women’s health services,” which could mean a pregnancy test or an ultrasound. Those must be provided if they have abortions available.

Even a success story in Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountain’s spring 2010 newsletter has to specify that a woman’s life was saved from a mammogram — provided by another organization. Colorado and Nevada also refer women to other providers.

Planned Parenthood of Southeast, Inc., which covers Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, all list “mammogram referrals” on their sites.

Planned Parenthood does offer “clinical breast exams” at five locations in North Carolina through a grant from Susan G. Komen. However, these still don’t include mammograms:

Referrals for risk-appropriate screening mammograms are also provided, and patients with abnormalities will receive referrals to access diagnostic procedures. We work to increase access to early breast cancer education and detection for underserved young women in Triangle, Guilford and Forsyth counties of NC and Roanoke and New River valleys of VA – for whom we often serve as primary health center providers.

Planned Parenthood of Southeast Iowa mentions mammograms, but those services are provided through the Iowa Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Planned Parenthood claims that millions of women will lose their opportunity to get mammograms if their federal funding is cut. However, they have to provide those services before women lose the opportunity. Where are these so-called mammograms taking place?

In 2008, Planned Parenthood Federation of America brought in $85 million over expenses. That $85 million could provide a lot of mammograms.

If Planned Parenthood is providing “life-saving” services to women with that $350,000,000 in federal funding, shouldn’t they at least show the American people exactly where it is going?

Adrienne works in the conservative movement and blogs at Cosmopolitan Conservative and Adrienne Loves.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Log in, or connect with Connect
Gainesville, FL
Denise March 30, 2011 – 8:17pm

Planned Parenthood itself does not provide mammograms, they do however provide funding and assist women in getting mammograms.

I know this because someone close to me recently (just a few months ago) needed a mammogram, has no health insurance, went to Planned Parenthood where she was given an exam — they then helped her set up an appointment with a mammography lab and provided her with a voucher to pay for the service.

Perhaps we can have a great debate on open mic someday on your assessment that the United States was responsible for WWII on both the Germans and the Japanese

“Responsible” is probably not the correct word, for it infers that the US started the shooting.

It is better said “created the necessary conditions whose consequences directly lead to WW2”

You have to start this analysis with Wilson

Wilsonianism or Wilsonian are words used to describe a certain type of ideological perspectives on foreign policy. The term comes from the ideology of United States President Woodrow Wilson and his famous Fourteen Points that he believed would help create world peace if implemented.

Common principles that are often described as “Wilsonian” include:

Advocacy of self-determination by ethnic groups
Advocacy of the spread of democracy
Advocacy of the spread of Capitalism
Anti-isolationism/ Anti-Imperialism, in favor of intervention to help create peace and / or spread freedom

Flag, I tend to disagree wi th your assessment and sources on Warsaw and Rotterdam. 25 September ’39 saw the dropping of 550 tons of HE on Warsaw and 72 tons of incendiaries. The figure comes from Jochen Bohler in the “German Historical review” and is mentioned again, slightly differently by Walter Boyne. Bohler says 20,000 dead. The Rotterdam raid was scheduled for 14 May ’40 and involved a huge attack for the purpose of forcing the surrender of the Netherlands. The government agreed to surrender but the raid had already started. It was called off about a third of the way through. Primarily military targets IN THE OLD CITY were hit with civilian casualties, destruction of churches, schools and hospitals within the zone of attack. These were obviously in the wrong place and the Dutch should have moved them. The British did inflate the casualty figures from the 1,000 most historians believe died to 30,000. Was this deliberate? Who knows. Here we are 70 some years later and our instant news cycle still gets everything wrong. After this raid, the British government changed its bombing policies from strictly military/industruial to something akin to all bets are off. Bomber Harris later refined the technique.

Sorry Flag, there is absolutely nothing you can say or do, no statistic you can cite that will mitigate the Germans and Japanese outrages in WW 2. Hard to say in this cynical age but Turkel may have been right, It was the last “good war”. Certainly it was a war waged against absolute evil. The Nazi’s were the most successful progressives of their day and their demise was both long overdue and quite fitting. I believe in the Holocaust, I have relatives who were there who were Christians and I have had business associates who lived through the nazi occupation. I grew up next to Jews who bore the tattoo.

As a consolidation prize, I’m pleased to tell you that I am unalterably opposed to this Libyan nonsense. We are entering into this Orwellian age of Total War as a distraction. Not only does the current adminitration make the last look competent but it makes the Bush crew look like they had integrity! I fully expect to hear the presidennt, whenfinally questioned about “boots on the ground” to object strenuously claiming he told the truth because, in fact, we only had sandals on the ground.

Sorry Flag, respect the hell out of you but an apologist for Nazi and Japanese atrocities? No way. Don’t know why they got the way they did, don’t know why the racial doctrine took hold the way it did but the phrase “By any means necessary” should have been invented just for them.

We did get a wee bit smarter over the years in that we were able to crush the third “ism” without a major war. Didn’t help the little people though who got caught up in the proxy fights between ’45 and ’91.

Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

“In Britain, the 1942 Beveridge Report urged creating a welfare state after the war… In the United States, Franklin Roosevelt in his January 1944 State of the Union address echoed the Beveridge Report… (H)e called for ‘steeply graduated taxes, government controls on crop prices and food prices [and] continued controls on wages . . . Government should guarantee everyone a job, an education, and clothing, housing, medical care, and financial security against the risks of old age and sickness.'” Standard New Deal stuff, all.

But would FDR be able to do so?

“Roosevelt, who declared after Pearl Harbor that he was no longer Dr. New Deal but was now Dr. Win the War, was clearly contemplating returning to his former role after the war was over. This despite the fact that in his second term the New Deal was proving unpopular. Gallup polls from 1937 to 1940 saw majorities opposing Roosevelt’s never-enacted “Third New Deal” and supporting cuts in government spending, favoring curbs in the power of labor unions, and opposing welfare programs.

Majorities said that New Deal programs were deterring businesses from creating jobs. Roosevelt was evidently calculating that government’s success in the war effort would transform public opinion, as it indeed did in Britain.”

War, as Randolph Bourne declared, is ever the health of the state. Roosevelt’s state was looking sickly from 1937 on; indeed, this loss of public support probably caused him to back off the court-packing plan in 1937.

He needed a way to revive his flagging popularity and social programs, and he sought it in war. His motive was not the noble sacrifice of Stinnett, or a crusade against Nazi evil: it was the worst sort perquisite-maintaining backroom dealing that he could muster. But it fit perfectly the needs of the political animal, and explains better than anything his desire for war. Like George Washington Plunkitt, he had “seen his opportunities, and he took ’em.”

Does Charlie’s stealing and spending of my money improve prosperity and social order MORE then me spending my own money?

There are many ways to solve the problem of a lack of capital other than stealing someone else’s capital.

Charlie seems to believe that the rich are like the cartoon character of Donald Duck’s uncle Scrooge – piles of cash in a safe.

But does not work that way.

The rich by a Ferrari – so does Charlie hate men who make the steel, build the fenders, sew the leather and he wants those men’s family to starve? I doubt it.

It is not a matter of economics – the rich either buy stuff (and other people earn that money making that stuff), or put it into a bank (and a bank lends the money to other people to buy stuff) or they invest it (and that company buys stuff and hires people to make stuff).

All of this solves the problem of a lack of capital and does so a whole lot better than stealing – as all of this increases the prosperity of society by producing more goods and solving more problems

So, really Charlie is merely jealous of the rich, and has nothing to do with helping society.

I watched “The Demolition Man” the other day with Sly Stallone. Why, you ask? Because I am diabled and bored to tears and reading is no longer filling my day. I mean, what can I say?

Anywho, I was struck, aside from the fact that it’s a cheesy movie in general, by a comparison between that made up future and the present of today. I can mentally see your looks of consternation and derision already. But try thinking back.

That movie sort of parallels our world of today. In the movie, anything deemed “not good for you” was illegal. You were expected to be fanatically politically correct with joy joy feelings towards everyone and everything. And you were electronically monitored with everything you said. You were fined if you even said “damn” out loud. You could only eat foods that were considered good for you. I mean, EVEN SALT WAS ILLEGAL!!!! YOU COULD NOT EAT STEAK!!!! Hell I’d rather BE dead.

And I know. We ain’t gone that far yet. But if you think about it. We are headed that way.
They are already trying to outlaw any food not good for you by taxing it and regulating it out of existence.
Even the Military has to be so Politically Correct that they are swiftly becoming incompetent. Not to even mention Washington.

Yes, I am mostly kidding here. That is a really stupid movie. BUT. If you have seen it. It is really odd how a movie made in 1993 is starting to come just a little true today.

As long as war between societies has existed there has been a concerted effort of those societies to support the warriors warring for them. And as long as war has existed, cities have been burned and nonviolent civilians have been getting killed in mass.

I am not arguing that is has happened – that is self-evident.

I am saying the preponderance of it happening is expontetially increased due to “total war” doctrine.

Today –it always happens when it the past it rarely happened

BF – ” So you hold the same sick, evil belief that those not in combat are targets of combat. ”

BL – So you are in denial that civilians have been targeted all throughout history?

No.

I am saying they are now always targeted where in the past is was rare.

A civilian pays taxes that support the government which uses some of that money to buy bombs. It uses the rest of that money to pay someone to fly that bomb to your country and drop it there, possibly killing your civilian citizens.

So is that first civilian not an enemy of yours? Is he not facilitating the killing of your countrymen?

That way, of course, madness lies. But there’s a certain inescapable logic to it.

Black Flag – “I am not arguing that is has happened – that is self-evident.

I am saying the preponderance of it happening is expontetially increased due to “total war” doctrine.”

BL – Okay, since we now have a little have clarity, I have to agree with this statement as just about everything about war has exponentiated…including the damage it can and often does to civilians.

Black Flag – ” I am saying they are now always targeted where in the past is was rare.

Please start again from my first post and re-read it. ”

Black Flag Says: March 31, 2011 at 12:50 am – “JAC, Those without a gun in their hand or not on the battle field are innocent. The concept of “Total War” is -sadly- an American invention – the Civil War, where the concept that off-battle field support was critical in the war efforts and became targets. No longer was war between soldiers. It was war of soldiers on civilians. Yep, the Yankees invented a war crime.”

Black Flag Says: March 31, 2011 at 1:45 am – Union Army General William Tecumseh Sherman’s ‘March to the Sea’ in November/December 1864 destroyed the resources required for the South to make war. Sherman is considered one of the first military commanders to deliberately and consciously use total war as a military strategy. General Ulysses S. Grant and President Abraham Lincoln initially opposed the plan until Sherman convinced them of its necessity

BL – In other words, Sherman invented total war.

Sorry, Flag, …but I gotta call bullshit.

Total war to include targeting civilians has been around long before Sherman, and hasn’t been so uncommon/rare.

Killing, raping, pillaging, destruction, and enslaving was a normal day in battle for the average viking. Vikings regularly did this type thing for a long time. It was their culture.

And what about Carthage? Try telling THEM Sherman invented total war.

I don’t think it’s necessary to list any more examples as you know at least as much about history and warfare as I do. I’m sure you can think of a few examples yourself.

Has the general exponentiation of warfare manifested itself into whole societies being wiped out with the greatest efficiency ever known to man?

Has history shown the US to be second to none with respect to total war.

Of course. (I.E. – Hiroshima/Nagasaki)

Was total war common/uncommon/rare before modern times?

I suppose you could argue such, but it is dependent upon what you consider rare.

Your distinction is finally stated-“raging hordes out of control”-and “systemic policy”-one is just free men acting badly, the other is an act promoted by government. So one is just “shrug” and the other is evil. So it can walk like a duck and quack like a duck, but it doesn’t become a duck until it is used by government.

Just stay with us. Hope you heal up soon. I’m a two finger typist myself. Goes back to the days when the Company clerk went on leave and the 1st Sgt. decided that Trynosky, since he was college material, was just the guy to take his place. Imagine morning reports without white out, correct type or spell check and with carbon paper. Got finished every night around 9PM. Worked my way up to 45 wpm though when I am on a roll.

Propaganda death ensemble
Burial to be
Corpses rotting through the night
In blood laced misery
Scorched earth the policy
The reason for the siege
The pendulum it shaves the blade
The strafing air blood raid

Infiltration push reserves
Encircle the front lines
Supreme art of strategy
Playing on the minds
Bombard till submission
Take all to their graves
Indication of triumph
The number that are dead

[CHORUS]
Sport the war, war support
The sport is war, total war
When victory’s a massacre
The final swing is not a drill
It’s how many people I can kill

[CHORUS]

Be dead friend from above
When darkness falls
Descend into my sights
Your fallen walls
Spearhead break through the lines
Flanked all around
Soldiers of attriction
Forward their ground
Regime prophetic age
Old in its time
Flowing veins run on through
Deep in the Rhine
Center of the web
All battles scored
What is our war crimes
Era forever more…

War!

Propaganda war ensemble
Burial to be
Bones shining in the night
In blood laced misery
Campaign of elimination
Twisted psychology
When victory is to survive
And death is defeat

[CHORUS]
Sport the war, war support
The sport is war, total war
When the end is a slaughter
The final swing is not a drill
It’s how many people I can kill

Question for BF. What do you think should have happened once it Germany’s genocide program was exposed? Should other nations have intervened (had not Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan for Pearl Harbor, etc.)? In that instance, should genocide be ignored?

TS: Hindsight is 20/20. How in the world was the English supposed to know it was an “accident”. So the retaliation was justified at the time.

For the rest. Everybody seem to forget that back in the old wars, people were drafted to serve. There was no choice. Following orders back then is a lot different now. Back then, they did not teach anybody about what illegal orders were. They were all a bunch of young, justifiably scared people, wanting to go back home.

Today, and for the past few decades, we are an all volunteer military. The sick things you hear people do while in the military are all individual actions and were not orders. There is a BIG difference.